Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Apprentices (Training Syllabuses)

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Labour what steps he is taking or will take to encourage industry to draw up detailed syllabuses for the training of apprentices.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Richard Wood): The report "Training for Skill" recommended that each industry should consider the introduction of detailed training syllabuses in the light of its own circumstances. The report has been brought to the attention of the appropriate employers and workers organisations.

Mr. Moss: Does the Parliamentary Secretary recollect that the committee which investigated this matter recommended not tests but detailed syllabuses, which would be an advantage to some industries and ought to be considered by all? What are the Government doing to carry out that recommendation? I agree that it was suggested that it should be done by industry itself; nevertheless, the Ministry can do something.

Mr. Wood: I think the Committee took the view that, while detailed syllabuses could help to maintain high standards of training, the danger was that they might lead to inflexibility unless industry were enabled to make up its own mind in individual circumstances.

National Apprenticeship Council

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Labour whether he proposes to set up a National Apprenticeship Council.

Mr. Wood: The recommendation in the report "Training for Skill" that industry should set up a National Apprenticeship Council was considered by the National Joint Advisory Council last week. It was generally agreed that a central body of this nature was needed and that its constitution and scope should be considered in the course of joint discussions which are to take place shortly.

Mr. Moss: That is very agreeable news. Would the Parliamentary Secretary bear in mind that the committee also suggested that it should be done quickly?

Mr. Wood: That is very much in our mind. I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman.

Unemployment, Development Areas

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Minister of Labour what is the present percentage of unemployment in the Development Areas in North-East England, West Cumberland, South Wales and Monmouth, Wrexham, South Lancashire, Merseyside, North-East Lancashire and Scotland separately; and how these percentages compare with the national average.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): As the reply includes a table of figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:


PERCENTAGE RATES OF UNEMPLOYMENT, 17TH MARCH, 1958.


Development Area
Percentage


North-Eastern
2·1


West Cumberland
2·4


South Wales and Monmouthshire
3·3


Wrexham
3·9


South Lancashire
2·2


Merseyside
4·0


North-East Lancashire
2·2


Scottish
3·7


Great Britain
2·0

School-leavers, Leicester (Training School)

Mr. Moss: asked the Minister of Labour whether his attention has been called to unemployment among school-leavers in the city of Leicester and the proposal of the Chairman of the Youth Employment Committee to establish a junior training school; and what steps he will take to encourage this development.

Mr. Wood: On 14th April there were 86 young persons, including 13 who left school at Easter, who were registered as unemployed in Leicester. Of these more than half had been unemployed for less than two weeks. I have seen reports in the Press of the proposal referred to by the hon. Member but I understand it has not yet been considered by the youth employment committee.

Mr. Moss: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that the Leicester suggestion is a very good idea, which he might consider and try to spread? Is he aware that The Times of 16th April described this school as "a pool of labour with trainees earning as they learn"? It seems to be an excellent idea, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary agrees.

Mr. Wood: I assure the hon. Gentleman that I shall be particularly interested to learn the result of the consideration which the committee is shortly to give to this suggestion.

Mr. Lee: Would not the Parliamentary Secretary agree that in the last analysis only the Government can do the co-ordinating necessary for this kind of thing? I do not know whether I should refer the hon. Gentleman to The Times Educational Supplement of 28th April, in which this matter is argued cogently. I hope that the Government will take the initiative.

Bank Employees (Negotiating Machinery)

Mr. Rankin: asked the Minister of Labour if he will state the terms of the petitions he has received from the members of the staffs of the Royal Bank of Scotland and of the British Linen Bank in regard to their negotiating machinery; and what action he proposes to take in relation to their demands.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I will circulate the terms of the petitions in the OFFICIAL REPORT. My industrial relations officer for Scotland met the general managers of the Banks on 28th April, and further discussions with representatives of the union are being arranged.

Mr. Rankin: May we take it that the Minister regards it as a very serious thing that there should be employers who deny to their employees the right of proper

trade union representation and have been refusing to meet their union to discuss mutual interests between both sides? Do I take it also that the Minister will continue his efforts to bring the two bodies together and to get the bank men properly represented?

Mr. Macleod: The hon. Gentleman can certainly take it that I will do what I can. My answer has shown that we are meeting on the basis of the petition. I do not want to be a bore about the other point, but I must return to the point that the Ministry of Labour cannot, and should not, lay down who are to be recognised by the employers. As long as that reservation is accepted, I understand the necessity and I am prepared to see whether in discussion we can reach some settlement.

Following is the petition:
We, the undersigned, being members of the staff of the Royal Bank of Scotland, hereby repudiate the Joint Conciliation Council of the Scottish Banking Industry which has proved unsuitable as machinery for the voluntary settlement of terms and conditions of employment in that industry and appeal to you, as Minister of Labour in Her Majesty's Government, by every means in your power, to persuade the management of the Royal Bank of Scotland to meet the representatives of The National Union of Bank Employees in order to discuss the setting up of mutually acceptable negotiating machinery.

A petition signed by members of the staff of the British Linen Bank in similar terms was also received.

Unemployment, London

Mr. Lipton: asked the Minister of Labour how many people are now registered as unemployed in the London area; and what was the figure last year.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The figure is 52,615 at 17th March, the latest date for which figures are available, compared with 44,550 at 11th March, 1957.

Mr. Lipton: Will the right hon. Gentleman take note of the fact that this is quite a substantial increase on the comparable figure for last year? Will he also bear in mind that this figure includes one or two rather bad pockets of severe unemployment in certain parts of the London area, of which Brixton is an example? Will he see that as far as possible special attention is given to those pockets of unemployment which now exist?

Mr. Macleod: I recognise that the position differs a great deal in different parts of the country. I could not possibly promise special consideration for London. Even the figure I have given is only 1·2 per cent., and very many areas in other parts of the country cause us much more anxiety than that does.

Unemployment, Exmouth, Honiton, Seaton and Axminster

Mr. Mathew: asked the Minister of Labour what are the latest figures for unemployment in each of his Department's administrative areas in the Honiton Division of Devon; and what were the figures for the corresponding period last year.

Mr. Iain Macleod: At 14th April, 1958, the numbers registered as unemployed were 284 at Exmouth Employment Exchange, 126 at Honiton Employment Exchange, 53 at Seaton Employment Exchange and 51 at Axminster Employment Exchange. The corresponding figures for 15th April, 1957, were 296, 134, 68 and 46 respectively.

Industrial Health Surveys (Reports)

Mr. Brockway: asked the Minister of Labour what recommendations have been made by the Industrial Health Advisory Committee; and what decisions have been reached by Her Majesty's Government on the recommendations.

Mr. Wood: The Industrial Health Advisory Committee has discussed many questions relating to the development of industrial health services since it was reconstituted in 1955, but its discussions generally lead to advice and guidance as to future work in this field rather than to formal recommendations. It was with the advice of the Committee that surveys were recently made in Halifax, of conditions in factories generally, and in Stoke, of conditions in the pottery industry. The recommendations of the Committee arising out of the Halifax Survey were published last month. The Government's view of those recommendations was stated in the reply to the Question by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) on 23rd April last. The report on the Potteries Survey has not yet been received.

Mr. Brockway: While appreciating the work which has been done, in view of the fact that it is now seven years since the Dale Committee of Inquiry recommended the extension of the Industrial Health Service and that both the Trades Union Congress and the British Medical Association have recommended action on this matter, will the hon. Gentleman, as soon as the reports are to hand, speed action? Will be particularly look at the industrial health centre at Slough, which I think he will recognise as a pioneer and model in this kind of activity?

Mr. Wood: I have certainly read with interest of the work of the centre, and I hope to pay further attention to it in future. On the industrial health question, this was the main recommendation of the Halifax Survey, and, as I announced in answer to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, we shall do our best to put that into practice.

Shipbuilding Industry (Restrictive Practices)

Mr. Osborne: asked the Minister of Labour, in view of the fact that British shipbuilders booked no export orders at all during the first quarter of 1958, and that both Germany and Japan had higher productions and that Japanese prices are 25 per cent. lower than ours, if he will call a conference of both sides of the industry to investigate how far all restrictive practices can be ended, and British prices reduced in order to forestall widespread unemployment; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Iain Macleod: As the House will recall, the general question of restrictive labour practices has been under consideration by the National Joint Advisory Council. The Council took the view, with which I fully agree, that, while it could encourage both sides of industry to set up machinery for the purpose of examining these problems, it was for each industry concerned to conduct the examination in the light of its own needs and circumstances. The shipbuilding industry is doing this.

Mr. Osborne: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that these talks have been going on for a long time and that so far, I believe, they have produced no concrete results? Since I put down this Question the Cunard has cancelled


an order for a big liner. The outlook in the shipbuilding industry is very bleak unless we can get our costs down. Can my right hon. Friend urge both sides to get down to it before unemployment occurs in the industry?

Mr. Macleod: This is a very difficult and intricate problem. I differ from my hon. Friend only about the method of tackling it. The N.J.A.C. believes and I believe that this question can best be tackled through the industry. Recommendations were made by the Shipbuilding Court of Inquiry on this matter only a year ago, and some meetings have taken place. I agree that progress has been disappointingly slow, and I am ready to urge and encourage the parties to go further, but I believe the examination should be left to them.

Mr. Isaacs: Is it not a fact that previous examination of this question has shown that there is no real evidence of the actual restrictive practices about which the employers complain?

Mr. Macleod: No, I could not accept that.

I.L.O. Survey (Freedom of Association)

Mr. Prentice: asked the Minister of Labour whether the United Kingdom delegates to the Governing Body of the International Labour Organisation supported its recent decision to undertake a continuing factual survey into conditions relating to freedom of association; and whether steps are being taken to submit reports for this purpose relating to territories under United Kingdom administration.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The United Kingdom Government representative supported the principle of such a survey but abstained from voting on the particular proposals put forward, which had some unsatisfactory features, especially as to the procedure to be followed. As regards the second part of the Question, it is understood that the survey will be carried out in stages over a period of time, and no reports have yet been requested from the United Kingdom.

Mr. Prentice: Can the Minister give us some more information on the parts of the resolution which were regarded as

unsatisfactory? Can he assure the House that Her Majesty's Government will cooperate fully in giving what reports are required for the survey and, if necessary, allowing I.L.O. representatives to visit territories under United Kingdom administration?

Mr. Macleod: There were some matters regarding procedure with reference to the question of travelling missions and the scope of the suggested survey that we have found unsatisfactory, and we have made certain comments and reservations about them. Subject to that, of course, we will co-operate with the survey, bearing in mind the point of view our representative took.

Temporary Transfer Scheme (Lodging Allowances)

Miss Burton: asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that mobility of workers, in local pockets of unemployment which have developed in the past two months, wishing to move elsewhere is impeded by the waiting period of four weeks, and also by the amount offered in the lodging allowances scheme for workers who have been compelled to leave their normal areas due to redundancy; and what proposals he has in mind to remove this impediment.

Mr. Iain Macleod: I announced in the House on 25th April some improvements in the facilities offered under the Resettlement Transfer Scheme. I do not consider that a case has been established for making further changes in the Temporary Transfer Scheme additional to those I announced in my reply to the hon. Member's previous Question on 19th February. I will, however, keep the matter under review.

Miss Burton: Does the Minister realise that the four-week waiting period cuts right across his stated objective that unemployed workers should be transferred to other work as soon as possible? Would he not agree that the 24s. 6d. given in the 1940s and the 35s. given today are quite different in financial value, and that the amount should be at least £3? Does he not realise that we are paying unemployment benefit to the men during the four weeks instead of paying them lodging allowance? Would not the latter be better?

Mr. Macleod: On those two points, I have always maintained the position—which I am sure is right—that in both this scheme and the Resettlement Transfer Scheme we should not attempt to cover the full cost of lodgings. It is meant to be only a contribution, and I increased it by nearly 50 per cent. last June. I have always thought it right that there should be some waiting period, although I have reduced that recently. As a matter of fact, I have today received a letter from the T.U.C. on this and similar points. In the light of that, I will look into the matter.

Mr. Lee: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that he has accepted the principle that the waiting should not be too long? The trade union movement is very concerned about this issue? In a short time, when he has had a look at the four-week period as against the eight-week period, will he give a further report to the House as to the way in which it is working out?

Mr. Macleod: Yes, I will. In fact, extremely little use has so far been made of the scheme, and it will be interesting to see whether the improvements alter that.

Unemployment, Kilmarnock and Newmilns

Mr. Ross: asked the Minister of Labour the numbers of unemployed registering at employment exchanges in Kilmarnock and Newmilns, respectively, at the latest available date, and on the same date in 1957.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The figures were 770 at Kilmarnock and 76 at Newmilns at 14th April, compared with 389 and 37 respectively at 15th April, 1957.

Unemployment, Newcastle- under-Lyme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Labour for how long the unemployment percentage in Newcastle-under-Lyme has exceeded the national average.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Since August, 1955.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that this is almost entirely due to Government policy? There was the levying of Purchase Tax on pottery and the Government policy in regard to the

building industry. A large proportion of these people are building workers. Will the right hon. Gentleman make representations to his colleagues in the Cabinet?

Mr. Macleod: I am always in touch with the President of the Board of Trade on these matters, and I hope that the Bill we are to discuss later today will prove relevant.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPBUILDING

Steel Deliveries

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty when he expects deliveries of all types of steel to the shipyards to be adequate to meet demand.

The Civil Lord to the Admiralty (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith): Production of plate and heavy sections is improving so that supplies to the shipbuilders should improve; I hope that this progress will be maintained.

Orders

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what volume of tonnage is presently on order in United Kingdom shipyards; and, taking 1957 launchings as a comparison, how long it will take to complete the present order book.

Mr. Galbraith: At the end of March, 1958, approximately 6·2 million gross tons of new merchant shipping were on order in United Kingdom shipyards. The 1957 launchings were 1·35 million gross tons. I am not prepared to follow my hon. Friend to the inference that it will take 4½ years to complete the present order book.

Mr. Williams: I am pleased to hear my hon. Friend's answer to that Question. Does he not agree that one of the most important things in the industry is to speed up the introduction of automative devices and to induce everyone in the industry to get rid of whatever restrictive practices there are?

Mr. Galbraith: There is a lot to be said for my hon. Friend's view.

Mr. Willey: In spite of the long order books, is not the absence of orders and


the increase in the number of cancellations causing some concern in the industry?

Mr. Galbraith: The order books at the moment are about the same as they have been for the last four years, and there is no need to worry at all.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY

Bird Watching Expedition (Transport)

Shinwell: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what facilities were provided by his Department for the transport of equipment and stores for a private bird-watching expedition conducted by Mr. Guy Mountfort; what Admiralty vessel was used for this purpose; what was the amount paid for these services; and whether his consent was obtained to this transaction.

The Parliamentary and Financial Secretary to the Admiralty (Mr. Robert Allan): Royal Fleet Auxiliaries sail frequently to the Mediterranean. Inquiries were received as to whether any such ship might have space available to carry some of this expedition's equipment.
There was available in the R.F.A. "Fort Dunvegan" the very small space required; this space would otherwise have been empty. A charge of £2 was made to cover handling. This arrangement was made with due Admiralty approval.

Mr. Shinwell: Is the hon. Member aware that Mr. Mountfort in his book—which, by the way, is a profit-making venture—stated that Lord Mountbatten, the First Sea Lord, used his influence in order to obtain these facilities? Is it customary for the Admiralty to provide facilities of this character for a private venture of this kind?

Mr. Allan: Yes, Sir. It is customary to provide Service facilities in certain circumstances. This was a serious expedition of an international character, the reports of which will be of value. The Admiralty has always had what it is pleased to call an indulgence rate at which freight can be carried, provided that it does not inconvenience or displace any official freight. This request was originally made by Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke, and it was perfectly in accordance with custom to accede to it.

Mr. Shinwell: What does the hon. Member mean by "an expedition of an international character"? Are we to understand that if a number of people gather together and decide to proceed on a bird-watching expedition in Spain, that has international implications?

Mr. Allan: I merely meant that it was international in character. There were other nationalities in the expedition.

Mr. Chetwynd: Are we to understand that the birds in question were wrens?

Mr. Wigg: Would the hon. Member be good enough to circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the conditions under which these facilities are available to all sections of the community? Or are they the exclusive right of the personal friends of Lord Mountbatten?

Mr. Allan: I said that this authority was given with due Admiralty approval.

Mr. Callaghan: Is this not a perfectly normal and good piece of public relations?

Nuclear Submarine Cargo-Carriers

Mr. Chetwynd: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Admiralty what action is being taken to develop nuclear submarine cargo-carriers.

Mr. Galbraith: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Oldbury and Halesowen (Mr. Moyle) on 23rd April.

Mr. Chetwynd: Is it not a fact that we are now having to concentrate our limited resources of men and money on atomic submarines for war purposes? Would it not be more desirable, in the long-term interests of our shipbuilding industry and our mercantile marine, if we devoted our resources in this respect to cargo vessels for peaceful purposes and perhaps relied on the Americans for information about submarines for war?

Mr. Galbraith: I think the hon. Member is not quite accurate in his information. Work on the submarine is for defence purposes. At the same time, work is going ahead to produce a surface merchant vessel which will be economic. It would be a mistake to divert that work to try to produce a submarine which is also economic. Let us get the surface vessel economic first.

Oral Answers to Questions — RBRITISH ARMY

Troops, Germany (Discipline and Efficiency)

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on the recent acts of indiscipline committed by troops serving in the British Army of the Rhine, which resulted in the death of one soldier and severe injury to several others.

Mr. Bellenger: asked the Secretary of State for War what were the circumstances which contributed to the recent disturbances in which two British regiments in Germany were involved and which resulted in the death of a soldier and injuries to others.

Mr. Strachey: asked the Secretary of State for War to make a statement about the disturbance at Sennelager on 13th April involving men of The King's Regiment, Liverpool, and the Gloucestershire Regiment when a British soldier was killed and five other soldiers injured.

The Secretary of State for War (Mr. Christopher Soames): The disturbance took place after duty hours at a camp where members of the Gloucestershire Regiment and the King's Regiment were being trained. On the evening of 13th April a party of men of the King's Regiment went to a barrack room occupied by the Gloucesters. A fight broke out in the course of which three soldiers of the Gloucestershire Regiment received wounds from which one of them has died. Four men were put under arrest. The circumstances have been investigated and a decision will shortly be taken as to the charges to be brought.

Mr. Wigg: I am very glad to hear from the Secretary of State that this was a very limited occurrence between two regiments. Will he also bear in mind that it gravely reflects on the state of discipline in the Rhine Army that such a thing should happen, involving the death of a soldier? Would it not have been far better if his Department had made an early announcement that it intended to set up a court of inquiry to inquire into the circumstances and to undertake disciplinary action, if such action were necessary?

Mr. Soames: I know the House will be very glad to know that this was a

completely isolated, even though tragic, incident, which flared up from one second to the next. An announcement of the fact was made and the inquiry was set in motion. I hope that I shall soon be able to decide what charges should be brought.

Mr. Strachey: Does not the Secretary of State appreciate that we find it a little difficult to accept the view that this is an entirely isolated incident. There have been incidents from time to time in the Rhine Army. Is he not concerned to find out why the frequency of such incidents in this command seems to be greater than in others?

Mr. Soames: The number of courts-martial in B.A.O.R. in 1956, the last full year for which we have complete records, was fewer than in any other command.

Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War to make a statement on his recent visit to the British Army of the Rhine, with particular reference to the operational efficiency and the state of discipline of units serving therein.

Mr. Soames: In the course of my tour I visited the Headquarters, British Army of the Rhine, the Headquarters of the British Corps, two brigade groups, and a number of units. I formed the opinion that the efficiency, readiness and general standard of discipline of our troops in Germany are of a very high standard.

Mr. Wigg: Had the Secretary of State for War read the Daily Telegraph leading article of 19th March before he made his trip—an article which stated that next to German units our brigades were beginning to look scruffy, that we were short of a tank with the capacity to travel long distances, that the War Office had broken its promise to introduce a replacement for the Vickers and that we were also short of an automatic rifle? Did he take those facts into account? If his trip enabled him to repudiate the statements which appeared in the Daily Telegraph, why does he not do something about it? After all, this is the chief organ of the Government. It is known to be very close to the Minister of Defence. In the interests of the British Army generally, and of the British Army of the Rhine in particular, is it not necessary at a very early stage to repudiate such statements that the units of this formation are scruffy?

Mr. Soames: The leading article to which the hon. Member refers, as I read it, did not mean scruffiness in terms of men or discipline or bearing. The article referred to the equipment of the British Army of the Rhine and compared it with that of the German army. Hon. Members must realise that the German army is a new army starting from scratch and obviously buying brand new equipment everywhere. In some respects, our equipment is bound to be lagging behind that of this new army, with its brand new equipment. The hon. Member mentioned tanks. The Centurion tank is widely acknowledged to be about the best tank in its field which exists in the world.

Mr. Lindsay: Does my right hon. Friend agree that these questions denigrating the Army come very badly from an hon. Member who himself has a good military record?

Mr. Strachey: Can the Secretary of State tell us anything about the re-equipment of the Rhine Army with the automatic rifle, and how that is proceeding?

Mr. Soames: That is another question, and I could not give an exact date.

Mr. Wigg: May I say, in reply to the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. M. Lindsay), that he might have had the decency to read the Daily Telegraph leading article and to have realised that, in tabling this Question, I gave the Secretary of State for War the opportunity of repudiating the organ of the Conservative Party.

7th Armoured Division (Disbandment)

21. Mr. Wigg: asked the Secretary of State for War why he caused the 7th Armoured Division, the Desert Rats, to be disbanded.

Mr. Soames: The Army is being reorganised to employ armoured and infantry brigade groups as the basic fighting formations. Although divisional headquarters will be retained, and if necessary would command a mixture of armoured and infantry brigade groups, armoured and infantry divisions such as we have known them in the past are disappearing. Each brigade group will have its individual sign and the Desert Rat will be worn by the 7th Armoured Brigade Group, so that it will continue to be worn in the front line.

Mr. Wigg: While congratulating the right hon. Gentleman on that very satisfactory reply, may I ask him whether he does not think that it would have been far better to have made the announcement a month ago, and thus not have caused The Times and other papers to write leading articles drawing attention to the lack of imagination by the War Office?

Bird-watching Expedition (Equipment)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Secretary of State for War (1) if he will state the nature of the equipment supplied to a private bird-watching expedition conducted by Mr. Guy Mountfort; whether such equipment was surplus to War Office requirements; and what was the amount of payment received by his Department;
(2) what representations were made to his Department, and by whom, for a supply of equipment for a bird-watching expedition; and whether such supplies were made with his consent.

Mr. Soames: The supplies were some insect repellant and a small quantity of packed rations. Because of their special packing, some things of this sort made for the Army are convenient for the use of scientific expeditions, and it is our practice to help occasionally by supplying small quantities on repayment. A request on behalf of the expedition to Spain was made by Field Marshal Lord Alanbrooke. The total cost, including carriage and departmental expenses, was £12 8s. 5d., and this was paid by the expedition.

Mr. Shinwell: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether, if I or any other hon. Member wishes to purchase certain equipment from the War Office, such as field glasses, rucksacks, fishing tackle or whatever is available, we can do so without going to the Ministry of Supply? Is it customary to do this? Further, may I ask him if he is aware that, in spite of the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), on the Front Bench, bird-watching expeditions are not included in the programme of the Labour Party?

Mr. Soames: This was an ornithological expedition, and if the right hon. Gentleman has in mind leading an international scientific expedition somewhere


and would like the help of the War Office, perhaps we might help.

Mr. Callaghan: Is the Secretary of State for War aware that the reason why there is no reference to bird-watching in the programme of the Labour Party is that we have plenty to do to keep our finger on the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell)?

Mr. Shinwell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Do I understand, Sir, that an hon. Member on the Front Opposition Bench has a right to make a statement of that kind, and in public, that the Front Bench is now occupied keeping its finger on my activities? Do I understand that that is in accordance with Parliamentary propriety?

Mr. Speaker: I understood the remark to be jocular. It certainly could not be applied in its literal sense, and it was either metaphorical or jocular. I do not see any reason for me to intervene in a matter of that sort. These exchanges are common among hon. Members, and I do not think it was ill-natured, either.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Shinwell: Further to that point of order. May I direct your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that my hon. Friend, like many Scotsmen, jokes with considerable difficulty?

Mr. Speaker: I should be the last to make a pronouncement about a sense of humour, knowing the reputation which my race has in this matter.

Mr. Kershaw: May I ask my right hon. Friend if he is aware that, if the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) wishes to have any assistance in keeping his eyes on some of the pretty queer birds on his own side, we will give him every assistance?

Mr. Speaker: I think we had better pass to the next Question.

Sir T. Moore: On a point of order. May I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to advise hon. Members, and particularly some right hon. and hon. Members opposite, to keep their domestic quarrels outside the House of Commons?

Mr. Speaker: It is no concern of mine to do that.

Exercises, Dartmoor (Fatality)

Miss Vickers: asked the Secretary of State for War if his attention has been drawn to a fatal accident to a civilian on Dartmoor during Army exercises; and what precautions are being taken to render that type of accident impossible in the future.

Mr. Hayman: asked the Secretary of State for War when the warning flags in use on the day when a schoolboy was recently killed by shrapnel in Dartmoor National Park were last renewed; whether he will arrange for larger flags to be supplied in future; and whether early consideration will be given to the possibility of improving the present system of warnings.

Sir H. Studholme: asked the Secretary of State for War what is the present system of warning to civilians to keep clear of the Army firing area on Dartmoor; and whether he is satisfied that every possible precaution is taken to avoid risk of accident.

Mr. Soames: The safety precautions begin with the publication of notices in the local press and elsewhere, giving details of firing programmes. On the range itself, notice boards are placed on every track leading to the danger area. When the range is in use large red flags, measuring 12 feet by 6 feet are flown on nine of the highest tors where they are visible from every part of the range boundary. They are renewed individually when necessary. Finally, the range is patrolled before use by five range wardens mounted on ponies.
These precautions have been carefully planned. They are operated under strict standing orders and supervised by a retired colonel, the permanent range commandant. I believe they are as comprehensive as we can make them.

Miss Vickers: I am sure that everyone in the House will wish to commiserate with the family who lost a boy on that sad occasion. May I ask my right hon. Friend whether, as this is now a public park and as a great many visitors go there who do not necessarily see the local papers, he could suggest to the Army authorities that they might add further notices to the notices already warning people about cattle and ponies? These notices attract far more attention and can


be seen more easily than some of the Army notices. May I further ask him whether he knows that the family involved met several military walking through the area, but they gave them no warning of danger?

Mr. Soames: As to the notices to which my hon. Friend refers, they are about ponies and cattle, and they are on the main highway. They warn motorists of the danger of running into animals wandering on the road. This is not where the range is situated. There is no danger on the road, because the range is a long way off it, but on every track leading up to the range there are warning notices. If my hon. Friend has in mind any particular spot at which she thinks an extra notice would be beneficial and will acquaint me of it, I will certainly look into it.

Mr. Hayman: Is the Minister aware that the Western Morning News, in a news item with the heading "Danger Lurks in Dartmoor Park", said that from a distance one flag resembles a nondescript bit of washing? Will he take into account that, although large flags may be flying, mist on the high tors may quite obscure them, and will he see whether any improvements in the warning system are possible?

Mr. Soames: The flags are 12 feet by 6 feet. I am afraid I can do nothing about the mist. We renew the flags when they are worn out, but they are very large and very red.

Sir H. Studholme: May I ask my right hon. Friend whether it is the fact that the red flags are flying at all times whether or not firing is taking place, because that is what has been said, and, if it is a fact, does he not think that there is a very great danger of the warning being disregarded?

Mr. Soames: I can tell my hon. Friend that the flags are taken down every time the firing ceases. I think this impression has been caused because firing practice sometimes lasts a long time, perhaps a whole day, and people are apt to reach the conclusion that the flags are always there, though I assure my hon. Friend that that is not so.

Mr. Hayman: asked the Secretary of State for War whether he will make a statement on the recent death of a

15-year-old schoolboy, who was killed by shrapnel from a bursting mortar bomb near Cranmere Pool in Dartmoor National Park.

Mr. Soames: The accident took place on the Okehampton Range on 15th April. Firing had been in progress all the morning. Visibility was good and the normal safety precautions were in operation. Early in the afternoon a family of three people entered the danger area and one of them, a schoolboy, was killed by a mortar shell. I understand that an inquest is to be held on 22nd May. I should like to express my deep sympathy with the family bereaved by this tragic accident.

Mr. Hayman: While I am sure that the whole House will concur in the Minister's expression of sympathy with the family, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will take into account the fact that a national park and an artillery range are mutually incompatible? Will he institute a new inquiry into the use of Dartmoor by the Services in order to ascertain whether some other arrangement, outside the Dartmoor National Park, is possible?

Mr. Soames: This area of land has been used by the Army for exercises since 1872, and the area was designated as a national park in 1951, but this designation was understood at the time not to restrict the use of the land for military purposes.

Trooping the Colour (Fainting on Parade)

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for War, in view of the number of men who fainted at the parades held last year in connection with the Trooping the Colour ceremony, what proposals he has for preventing similar incidents this year.

Mr. Soames: The precautions which are always taken to reduce the incidence of fainting on parade were explained by my predecessor in answer to a Question on 24th July last year.

Mr. Hughes: But does the Minister recollect that, after these incidents, with photographs of the soldiers being published in the Press, his predecessor issued instructions to commanding officers that no disciplinary action was to be taken against the men for fainting? Is that to be the practice this time?

Mr. Soames: It is laid down in standing Orders that men who faint on parade shall not be punished unless the collapse is caused by their own negligence or excesses. Steps have been taken to see that these provisions are well known to all concerned.

Officers' Retired Pay

Mr. Storey: asked the Secretary of State for War in how many instances the Army Pensions Office miscalculated officers' retired pay under the Pensions (Increase) Warrant, 1956, through assuming wrongly that the warrant permitted the rescindment of previous option for New Code rates; and what was the average amount per annum of the error.

Mr. Soames: There were 210 such cases, and the average overpayment was about £11 a year.

Mr. Storey: Is my right hon. Friend aware of one instance, which was brought to my notice, of an officer, who has only his retired pay to live upon, who had been led to think, two years ago, that he had an extra £13 a year, but who has now been told that he will not receive that and has been asked to repay the two years' overpayment? Since the mistake was made by his Department, does not my right hon. Friend think that he should be more generous to these retired officers?

Mr. Soames: We are, naturally, bound to recover public funds which have been paid out improperly. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If they are paid out improperly, we are bound to recover them, wherever the mistake may lie. We are, therefore, asking the retired officers concerned to pay the money back, but we are spreading the repayments over a period, and we shall deal sympathetically with any cases where even a deferred payment would cause hardship.

General Lathbury (Press Statements)

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Secretary of State for War whether the statements made to the New York Press by General Sir Gerald Lathbury, Director-General of Military Training, to the effect that independence has been granted to some African countries too quickly and that Africa is wide open to Communism, were made with his authority.

Mr. Soames: I have seen a Press agency report of these remarks but not a full account. General Lathbury is at present in Canada. I have asked him for details, and I will let the hon. Member have the full facts as soon as they are available.

Mr. Stonehouse: Is it to be assumed from the reply of the Secretary of State for War that these statements were made without his authority? If so, may we take it that he will ensure that serving generals do not give expression to personal opinions which can give rise to wide misunderstanding?

Mr. Soames: No, Sir; what I intended to imply was that I had not had a full report of what the general said.

Mr. M. Stewart: Which countries in Africa did the general have in mind? Was he, perhaps, referring to the Union of South Africa?

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE

Holiday Resorts, South Devon (Collections and Deliveries)

Mr. Mathew: asked the Postmaster-General if he will now reconsider his decision to curtail Saturday postal collections and deliveries during the summer holiday season in the towns of Exmouth, Budleigh Salterton, Sidmouth and Seaton.

The Postmaster-General (Mr. Ernest Marples): No, Sir; I should not be justified in making a special exception of these towns. Mail formerly delivered by the second post on Saturday is available to people who need it if they call at the Post Office. Collections are still being made at the same time as before from the posting boxes at post offices in the towns.

Mr. Mathew: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that a large number of visitors during the summer months come to all these resorts from the Midlands and Northern England, and, of course, they cannot avail themselves of the slight concession he has made unless they know that a letter is coming? Will he look into the matter once again, in view of the special needs in this area? Further, will he state what progress has been made in the tempo of service from those parts since the days when we relied on horse-drawn traffic for mail collection and delivery?

Mr. Marples: The real difficulty about a second collection on Saturday stems from trying to give the Civil Service generally, and the Post Office in particular, the same pay and conditions as obtain in outside industry. So long as we try to do that, we shall always come up against these difficulties.

Delivery, Southampton

Mr. J. Howard: asked the Postmaster-General if he will arrange a second postal delivery on Saturdays to hotels in Southampton, in view of the fact that the hotel industry has a seven-day working week.

Mr. Marples: No, Sir; in this respect I cannot treat Southampton any differently from other towns. Correspondence formerly delivered by the second post on Saturday is available to people who need it if they call at the post office.

Mr. Howard: Will my right hon. Friend look into the particular case of Southampton, which is a port where visitors to the hotels are, largely, people passing through the port as travellers who stay only one night? It is extremely difficult to notify cancellations, particularly over Bank Holiday week-ends. Will my right hon. Friend look at the matter again to see whether some additional arrangement could be made?

Mr. Marples: I honestly cannot promise that one could treat South-hampton differently from other places, because its hotels would be placed in a more advantageous position thereby, which would not, on the whole, I think, be fair.

Mail Delivery, Glasgow

Mr. J. Henderson: asked the Postmaster-General if he is aware of the inconvenience caused to the business community in Glasgow by the late delivery of mail from Leicester and Nottingham which frequently is not delivered to Glasgow until the afternoon following the day of posting; and what steps he is taking to have a regular morning delivery.

Mr. Marples: Yes, Sir. These delays, which I regret, have been due mainly to the late running of the train used, especially during the bad weather in recent months. We are in close touch

with British Railways about this matter, and I am hopeful that there will be an improvement.

Mr. Henderson: In the event of my right hon. Friend not getting a satisfactory solution from the Ministry of Transport, will he seek some other means whereby this very important business connection between England and Glasgow could be improved?

Mr. Marples: I shall make strong representations to my right hon. Friend, but the matter is not very easy, because the modernisation plans on the railway involve a certain amount of engineering work between Warrington and Euston, though I think that we shall, ultimately, have the benefit of that work.

Mr. J. Harrison: Has the Minister heard of any other delays caused in transporting mail on British Railways, apart from this instance? Are these delays special to this route?

Mr. Marples: Delays are largely, of course, between Warrington and Euston, and this, of course, affects a number of places. As I said, it arises from the modernisation plan.

Oral Answers to Questions — TELEPHONE SERVICE

Kiosk, Ventonleague

Mr. Hayman: asked the Postmaster-General when he expects to provide a rural telephone kiosk at Ventonleague, Hayle, Cornwall.

Mr. Marples: By about the end of June, if, as I hope, there is no difficulty in finding a suitable site.

Mr. Hayman: Will the Minister take note that the people in the locality will welcome this news?

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE

Nuclear Weapon-carrying Aircraft (False Alarms)

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Air on how many occasions in the last three months false alarms have been sent to planes in the air over the United Kingdom carrying nuclear weapons, as a result of the appearance of meteors on the radar screen.

The Under-Secretary of State for Air (Mr. Charles Ian Orr-Ewing): None, Sir.

Mr. Swingler: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that satisfactory reply, but is he aware that there is still widespread concern about reports of false alarms in North America and about the unexplained situation that hydrogen bombers in North America have been alerted whereas hydrogen bombers here under the same command have not?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: That is a very different question. I have no responsibility for bombers flying from American bases.

Education Service (Pamphlets)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air what is his Department's policy on circulating within the education service of the Royal Air Force discussion pamphlets produced by organisations such as the Bow Group and the Fabian Society.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: We do not normally circulate pamphlets of this kind. One pamphlet by the Bow Group, containing information which was thought likely to be helpful to education officers consulted by service parents about boarding school education, was circulated early this year. However, after considering the circumstances, I have now decided that this pamphlet should be withdrawn.

Mr. de Freitas: Is it not a great shame that this pamphlet should have been withdrawn? Would it not be far better to circulate other pamphlets on education so that there may be discussion within the Service on this very important subject?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I think that it is in the general interest of the education services within our Armed Forces that we should not circulate pamphlets coming from political sources. It is hardly fair to leave it to the judgment of education officers as to how far politics may be accepted in individual pamphlets. Of course, these pamphlets are available to people who are interested; they can write and apply for them under their own arrangements, rather than through our circulation.

Beverley Aircraft (Successor)

Mr. de Freitas: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in consultation with the Secretary of State for War, he has now worked out and forwarded to the Minister of Supply a firm operational requirement for a successor to the Beverley aircraft.

Mr. Strachey: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether he has yet stated an operational requirement for a successor to the Beverley aircraft.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: I cannot, at present, add to the answer which my right hon. Friend gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) on 19th March.

Mr. de Freitas: Since so much of our whole defence strategy depends upon air mobility, will not the Minister give an undertaking to speed up the statement of requirements? Surely, it cannot be in transport—it would be most alarming if it were—that the Minister of Defence is determined to substitute missiles for manned aircraft?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: My right hon. Friend dealt with this matter on 19th March and he pointed out that the Beverley would continue to give very useful service into the mid-1960s. Although I realise that there is a need to hasten the result of our consultations with the War Office, I do not think that one should over-emphasise the need for speed.

Mr. de Freitas: But is the Under-Secretary not aware that these requirements have to be stated many years ahead and that time lost now will be very hard to catch up in future?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman says.

Mr. P. Williams: Will not my hon. Friend agree that there is great need for co-ordination between the military application of the follow-on aircraft and the civil application, and that it is very important that the two things should be brought together?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: That point has to be borne in mind, and, of course, the closest consultations with the War Office are necessary also before we can come to an agreed conclusion.

Long-range Freighter

Mr. McKibbin: asked the Secretary of State for Air if, when a requirement for a long-range freighter is defined for Transport Command, he will ensure that it has a civil as well as a military use; and if he will, in this connection, bear in mind Short and Harland's design which serves both purposes.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: Future Transport Command requirements for freighters are now being studied. We shall certainly see whether any type capable of meeting civil as well as Service needs would be suitable. The claims of the Britannia 533, to which I take it my hon. Friend is referring, will naturally be taken into account.

Mr. McKibbin: I would like to thank my hon. Friend for his reply, which I am sure will give satisfaction in Northern Ireland. In view of the location and facilities of Short and Harlands, second to none in the country, does my hon. Friend not consider that it would be a tragedy if the firm went out of production, especially as this is one of the few industries in Northern Ireland which are not dependent on sea transport?

Canberra Bomber (Replacement)

Mr. Mason: asked the Secretary of State for Air when there is to be a decision on a replacement for the Canberra bomber.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: As the House knows, we are examining the various possibilities, but it is bound to be some time before we are in a position to reach conclusions.

Mr. Mason: Whilst hoping that the decision is not being unduly delayed because of what appears to be a constant wrangle between the Minister of Defence and the Service Ministers, may I ask to what extent the N.A.39 is proving a possible successor to this aircraft?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: On the question of speed, the Canberra, particularly in its latest mark, will continue to serve very useful operational purposes well into the 'sixties. The N.A.39, to which the hon. Gentleman referred, is one of the aircraft under consideration. I think that I cannot say more at this stage.

Mr. de Freitas: Will the Under-Secretary of State not continually repeat the phrase that a certain aircraft will serve well on into the 'sixties? We well realise that. What we are interested in is a successor, because plans have to be made now.

Mr. Orr-Ewing: What is equally important is that we should get the aircraft which will really meet the very advanced operational requirements of the 'sixties and not get a second-best. We must take mature consideration before placing orders.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is my hon. Friend aware that this matter has been under consideration for over six months, that very little progress has been made, and that industry in some respects is being misled? Will he ask the Minister of Defence to bring some co-ordination into these matters so that workers in the industry know where they are?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: I will certainly bear that point in mind.

Recruiting (Survey)

Wing Commander Bullus: asked the Secretary of State for Air whether, in order to assist the examination of incentives and disincentives to recruiting, he will arrange for a survey to be made among serving airmen and airwomen.

Mr. C. I. Orr-Ewing: The Grigg Committee is undertaking a comprehensive study of recruiting factors. We have recently conducted a limited survey to weigh up the reasons which lead airmen and airwomen to prolong their service or to leave at the end of their initial engagements. This was carried out, under the direction of our scientists, at representative stations, and I would like to thank the 2,500 serving men who helped. We are now examining the findings, which are also being made available to the Grigg Committee.

Wing Commander Bullus: Based on the results of the survey, will the hon. Gentleman take practical steps to encourage serving personnel to remain in the Service for longer periods?

Mr. Orr-Ewing: We are anxious to do just that, and that is why we carried out this survey, on which we shall certainly take action.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Night Accidents

Mr. Page: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation to what he attributes the 1957 increase of 10·2 per cent. in road accidents at night, having regard to the fact that road accidents during the day decreased by 0·9 per cent.; and what are his proposals for combating that trend in the rate of night accidents.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): There have been more road accidents at night because the rate of traffic increase has been rather faster by night than by day. In addition, the figures for 1957 are higher because of a change in the definition of hours of darkness during summer time.
We are tackling the problem by building better roads, by attention to lighting in the vehicle testing scheme, by introducing better standards for rear lights and direction indicators, and by road safety propaganda generally.

Mr. Page: Do not these figures show very eloquently the drive that is necessary in the improvement and uniformity of street lighting? Can my hon. Friend give us hope of any progress in that respect?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, Sir. I did not like to lengthen the list of action that we are taking, but, in fact, I have a conference of the London authorities tomorrow to discuss that very question.

Mr. Isaacs: Has the Minister taken note of the figures in the Report issued by his Ministry for 1956, which show that accidents between the hours of 10 and 12 at night are at least 50 per cent. higher than the highest figures in the middle of the day? Does not the jump in the number of accidents from between 9 and 10 p.m. to the high figures between 10 and 12 p.m. show that the closing of the public houses has something to do with it?

Mr. Nugent: I think that it probably has.

Improvement Scheme, Newcastle-under-Lyme

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will now state when the trunk road improve-

ment scheme from London Road to Milehouse Lane in Newcastle-under-Lyme will be carried out.

Mr. Nugent: I cannot yet say when it will be possible to include this scheme in the road programme.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that a deputation is coming from the Newcastle-under-Lyme Council to his Department on 9th May and that he could save it a journey if he would give the decision now? In any case, is he aware that the deputation is confident that it will be able to persuade him, if he is reasonable, that this project should be given overriding importance?

Mr. Nugent: We have already done a good deal for the roads of Newcastle-under-Lyme. The hon. Gentleman's officials can be confident that they will receive a sympathetic reception and that progress will be made.

Traffic Signs (Report)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation when the report of the Anderson Committee on traffic signs is likely to be published.

Mr. Nugent: The Committee is making good progress, but I cannot yet say when its Report will be available.

Mr. Hynd: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the Committee is working on the problem of trying to standardise traffic signs as between the Continent and this country?

Mr. Nugent: The Committee's immediate task is to advise us on the best road signs for the new motorways, and it is aiming to do that in an interim report, probably this summer.

South-Western England

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation what plans he has for a motor road to serve the South-West of England.

Mr. Nugent: Motor roads are proposed linking Bristol with London, Birmingham, Exeter and South Wales. In addition, it is proposed to improve the direct route from London to Exeter by a new road from London to west of Basingstoke. These proposals are contained in the appropriate development plans.

Captain Pilkington: Would my hon. Friend agree that the North, North-West and West are catered for to a greater extent than the South-West, which is largely ignored, and that there are long, winding roads leading to the South-West? Will he try to increase the possibility of getting better roads there soon?

Mr. Nugent: I agree that there are some long, winding roads leading to the South-West. I sometimes use them myself. We must, however, have a priority list, and the commercial traffic is largely on the Midland and Northern routes.

Oral Answers to Questions — SHIPPING

Oil Imports (Carriage in British Ships)

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will state the percentage of oil imported into this country which was carried in ships flying the British flag in each of the past four years.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): It is estimated that in the years 1954, 1955, 1956 and 1957, 41 per cent., 40 per cent., 38 per cent. and 36 per cent. respectively of the oil imported into this country was carried in ships flying the British flag, but that the actual quantity of oil imported in such ships remained about the same.

Mr. Peyton: May I ask my hon. Friend if he is satisfied that sufficient is being done to maintain a modernised and fast fleet of tankers to carry the oil on which our economy so greatly depends? Would he accept that it is a basic strategic and commercial interest of this country that our proportion of the world's tonnage should not be constantly allowed to dwindle over the years?

Mr. Neave: I agree that the position requires very careful watching. The total British tanker tonnage has increased during the four years covered by my hon. Friend's question by about 21 per cent. Many British tankers, of course, are employed on voyages which do not bring them to the United Kingdom. The figures in my Answer relate to oil imports, which have increased from 35 million tons to 39 million tons during the years relating to my hon. Friend's Question.

Dame Irene Ward: May I ask my hon. Friend if he will bear in mind that complementary with this problem is the question of dry docks? May I have an assurance that the Government are not going to mess about with dry docks and that we shall have appropriate finance to ensure that we have modern dry docks to make us fully competitive in the markets of the world and able to maintain our traditional sea routes?

Mr. Neave: Dry docks are very important, but they are not my responsibility.

Dame Irene Ward: A bad reply.

Oral Answers to Questions — RAILWAYS

Railway Brake Conversion Scheme

Mr. D. Howell: asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation if he will give the reasons for the cut back in the railway brake conversion scheme; and what proportion of the total sum allocated to the British Transport Commission for purposes of modernisation he expects to be used for paying compensation for orders cancelled as a result of the slowing down of this plan.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The programme for converting existing wagon stock was reduced as a result of the capital investment cuts for 1958 and 1959. In addition, the programme for fitting 16-ton mineral wagons has been interrupted because it has been found that the braked wagons cannot be handled by some of the older type tippler gear at industrial plants until some modification of the gear has been carried out. A substantial cut back in the programme as a result of this difficulty is unlikely. Any financial arrangements to be made in respect of uncompleted contracts are a matter for the Commission and their contractors, but I am advised by the Commission that the cost to them of the revision of the contracts will be very small in relation to the total sum.

Mr. Howell: Is the Minister aware that there has been considerable anxiety in some quarters and on both sides of industry about the likelihood of men being put out of work because of these two factors and the possibility of large


sums of money being involved by the payment of compensation? Can the Minister, in giving us that statement, which we should welcome, assure us that the British Transport Commission and his Ministry will do their best to minimise both of these factors and get this work moving again quickly?

Mr. Watkinson: Certainly, Sir.

LONDON OMNIBUS DISPUTE

Mr. Robens: (by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any statement to make on the dispute in connection with the London buses.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): The Transport and General Workers' Union made a claim last October for an increase of 25s. a week for all the bus workers covered by the agreements between the London Transport Executive and the Union. The claim was eventually referred for arbitration by the Industrial Court. The award of the Court was that the weekly rates of pay for drivers and conductors employed on buses and trolley buses in the Central road services of the London Transport Executive should be increased by 8s. 6d. a week. As to the other sections of the staff, the Court found against the claim.
As regards my position as Minister of Labour in this dispute, the House will recall that in reply to a Question on 16th April I used these words, which I might now repeat:
Voluntary arbitration by the Industrial Court has always rightly been regarded as the final stage in the settlement of a dispute and I regret that the award has not been so regarded in this case by one of the parties. I cannot take any action which would have as its object a variation of the Industrial Court award".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1958; Val. 586, c. 18.]
The London Transport Executive is not prepared to depart from the terms of the award but has offered to review in the autumn the rates of pay of the grades covered by the claim who were excluded from the award.
Yesterday, I received a letter from the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union asking me to intervene in support of the suggestion which the union had put to the Executive that the 8s. 6d. a week awarded to certain grades of workers should be spread over

all the workers covered by the claim so as to give them an increase of 6s. 6d. a week, with a further review of the general wages position in the autumn. I have today told the union that I regret that I cannot accede to its request, as to do so would be to depart from the principle of adherence to arbitration awards on which I based my reply in the House which I have just quoted.
I am sure that the whole House will join me in the hope that even at this late stage the threatened strike may be averted by a settlement on the basis of the arbitration award of the Industrial Court.

Mr. Robens: I am sure that the whole House will join with the right hon. Gentleman in his hope that even at this late stage the threatened strike may be averted by a settlement. I doubt very much, however, whether the whole House will be unanimous in feeling that the right hon. Gentleman, in taking up this rigid line, is rendering the best service towards the settlement of this dispute.
The right hon. Gentleman will probably recollect that while it was not an award, his attitude, and that of the Minister of Health, concerning the clerks in the Health Service was entirely different. But I do not want to raise the temperature in the House at this stage; we all want to see a settlement.
Does the Minister appreciate that neither the trade union leaders nor the busmen nor anybody else, want this strike to take place and that what the Transport and General Workers' Union has proposed is not to add to the total given by the Industrial Court but that, by sacrifices among some sections, the staff would prefer to share the total sum without adding to the increase among the whole of the workers?
If there is fear of leapfrogging in wage advances, to which expression has been given on many occasions, would this not have been a suitable opportunity to bring the sides together to discuss the proposal of the Transport and General Workers' Union and even to extend it to see whether, in view of the impending wage negotiations in the provinces, there could not have been a national agreement on passenger transport services, with differentials clearly marked out, and, at this stage, obviate many of the troubles in the transport industry for years ahead?

Mr. Macleod: The right hon. Gentleman has raised many points. I, too, do not wish to raise the temperature. I would only say, of the National Health Service case, that that was neither an arbitration nor an award. In the present case, it is perfectly proper for the parties to seek to vary an arbitration award and that is what the union has sought to do—I have no complaint whatever about that; but it is a different matter to ask me to intervene in support of one of the parties to vary that arbitration award.
On the suggestion of what I may call the share-out of the 6s. 6d., I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman has recently seen the tape, but only a few moments ago it was announced that a meeting of delegates of the Central London bus drivers had voted against this share-out plan, which was put to me yesterday.
The main point about it is that it was perfectly open to the Industrial Court, whose verdict was unanimous, to have made a general award of 6s. 6d. or of any other amount, either on a cost of living basis or on any other basis that the Court thought proper, but it deliberately did not do that. The Court did not say, "We think that the amount paid should be £1 million and it is for the parties to divide it." I know of no case in which an Industrial Court has done anything like that. Therefore, to invite me to support that plan is precisely what Ministers of Labour have always refused to do: that is, to vary an arbitration award in circumstances of that nature.
The position as I have explained it covers the situation as it now is. If, however, there is any change in the attitude of the parties, I will, of course, be very glad to meet them.

Mr. Robens: The right hon. Gentleman will recall that the original decision of the London Transport Executive not to grant an increase was accompanied by the reason that the Executive could not afford it. Then, the Industrial Court thought that the Executive should afford the amount indicated by the Court. Therefore, in agreeing to accept the award, the Executive indicated that it was prepared to accept the additional cost. The question of the busmen's decision must be related to the rules of

the union and the powers of the Executive.
If the men are now prepared to share the award, was this not an opportunity for the Minister not to say that he was rejecting the Industrial Court award, but at this late hour, within a few days of the strike, to call the parties together to discuss this proposal, from which there might have emerged other ways in which the strike could have been averted? I do not want to preach to the right hon. Gentleman, but does he not feel that his function as Minister should be as peacemaker and to hold the ring where there is the slightest chance of bringing together parties who appear to be amenable to reason? Would that not be worth while at this stage?

Mr. Macleod: In view of the meeting which has just been held, the position concerning whether the award is still acceptable seems at least fluid. We had better leave it at that until we have more information. The right hon. Gentleman's comment does not get over the difficulty that the award was not one of £1 million, which is what it would cost, but for good reasons, or reasons which seemed good to the Industrial Court, was specifically an increase for certain grades covered by the claim and specifically not for the other grades.
The London Transport Executive has said that it is not prepared to depart from the terms of the award and has offered to make a review in the autumn. I do not think that it would be holding the ring, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, for me to intervene on behalf of a suggestion which, however one looks at it, is an intention to vary the award. If that variation is acceptable to the London Transport Executive and to the parties, that is their affair, but in my view it is not right for me to intervene to accept an arbitration award.

Mr. Robens: Surely, if the London Transport Executive has indicated that it is prepared in the autumn to review the wages of those who are not affected, is this not an opportunity for neither side to accept the award but to begin again under the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman on the basis of a possible review in the autumn and of the present position? Surely, there is something between the two points that the right hon. Gentleman should exploit?

Mr. Macleod: I am always willing to look at a position. I have said that if the two sides wish to come to see me, of course I will see them. I shall be very glad to do so. My statement today covers the position as I know it at the moment. As I say, it seems to have been altering in the last few minutes, and we had better study it so that we may know where we are on this question of the share-out. However, if there is any change in the attitude of the parties, I shall be very glad to see them.

Mr. Isaacs: The Minister has said that if the two sides ask him to meet them he will do so. I wonder whether he can go so far as to say that if one side asks him to invite the other side to meet him he will consider doing that? After all, we know the problems and troubles, and if, by sacrificing a little red tape, we can save the community a lot of trouble it might be worth while. Will the right hon. Gentleman go that far, if one side asks him that, in order to get a settlement?

Mr. Macleod: I will not give a closed answer to that sort of situation now, but I promise I will look at it in the light of the circumstances if it arises.

Several Hon. Members: Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Gough: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) has been standing up for the last five minutes to ask a question, without being called. I do not think that you heard him try to ask a question just now.

Mr. Speaker: I neither heard nor saw the hon. Member.

Mr. Gaitskell: Further to the point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is a very important matter. I think that there is a reasonable temper on both sides of the House, and that it would be helpful if we could pursue this matter by question a little further. I have no intention of asking any myself, but I think that hon. Members on both sides of the House might have a little further opportunity to ask questions.

Mr. Speaker: It is always rather difficult to know what one's proper duty is in these cases. If I ought to place a strict limit to questions, I am prepared to do so, because I do not think that it would be in the interests of either side of the House to get into a wrangle on

this matter, which would do more harm than good; and that is what I am afraid of. However, perhaps we may have a few reasonable questions. Who was the hon. Member on the Government side who rose just now? Mr. Mawby.

Mr. Mawby: The last thing that I want to do is to make this problem any worse, Mr. Speaker, but would my right hon. Friend either confirm or deny, so that we may have the record straight, that it is a long time ago since he offered an inquiry on the whole bus question throughout the country, and that it was turned down? It is rather interesting to note that we seem to be coming back to the suggestion which my right hon. Friend made in the very beginning, that an inquiry throughout the whole lot of the bus services should be made. Should we close our minds completely to this possibility, which was offered by my right hon. Friend so long ago?

Mr. Macleod: It is true that the idea of a general inquiry has always been attractive to me. The House will remember that I suggested it before this case was referred to the Industrial Court. However, the position now is that it was so referred—I make no complaint about that; I was content with that—and we have had an award which at present is the question in dispute. It may be that at some time in the future such an inquiry will take place, but it is hard to see at the moment how it could have much relevance to this immediate situation.

Mr. McLeavy: May I join my right hon. Friend in asking the Minister to reconsider the request made to him to call the two parties together? I am not satisfied at all with the statement of the Minister to the effect that he would be taking sides. It is the duty of the Minister of Labour to be impartial in all these matters, and I think—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] Does the Minister not agree that he would be exercising that impartiality if he called the two sides together in an endeavour to try to solve this rather difficult question? Is he further aware that the offer to share the amount available between a larger number of bus workers throughout the London area is a suggestion which will receive very considerable support in trade union circles?

Mr. Macleod: Whether it will receive support or not, as I said in response to an earlier question, I think that we had better wait and see. It is by no means clear at the moment. What I have said today refers to the situation to date, including my reply an hour or two ago to Mr. Cousins, and in response to questions by hon. Members, and I repeat that if there is any change in the attitude of the parties I shall be very glad to see them.

Mr. Mellish: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware, first, that if the strike starts on Monday it will obviously be a very protracted affair and will probably develop and will not be confined to the buses, with the result that the Minister, whether he likes it or not, will be involved, and that the two sides will have to be brought together? Therefore, what we have been asking the Minister to do is only what he will have to do later.
Secondly, on the financial position, I would put this point to back up what my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) said. The original claim was turned down by the London Transport Executive because it said that it could not afford this claim. Unfortunately, the matter went to arbitration and the award was made, which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned, which would cost about £1 million. London Transport was concerned mainly with costs and not principles. It was felt that the trade unionists concerned could help by sharing this amount of money, and I put it to the Minister that this is a hopeful indication of the good will of the trade unionists concerned, and that they are desperately anxious to avoid this conflict by going through all available machinery. I am sorry that this may appear to be a party political point, but may I put it to the Minister that one thing which—[HON. MEMBERS: "Speech."] Many people will be in trouble next week and they will want to know whether we have thought about and discussed this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the hon. Member to put his question. I think that it is the general desire of both sides of the House that we should say nothing which would exacerbate the matter.

Mr. Mellish: It must be stated at this stage, because, after all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question."] I ask the Minister whether he is aware that there is considerable feeling, which is certainly shared by myself, that the economic situation of the country, outlined by the Chancellor last September, has had a bearing on awards by arbitration committees, and that the Government just cannot absolve themselves from responsibility for this dispute, if there is one.

Mr. Macleod: On the hon. Member's last point, I have nothing to add to or to subtract from what I and the present Chancellor and the previous Chancellor have said from this Box. We thought it right to say it and say it openly to the country at all times.
With respect to the hon. Member, I do not think that he is really facing the issue on this share-out plan, because a matter of principle was involved from the point of view of Sir John Forster and the members of the Industrial Count. They thought it right to give this award to certain grades and to specify those grades, and not to give it to others. If we are to turn that into an overall cost of living award, or whatever it might be, that certainly would be to vary their intention and, therefore, to vary the arbitration award. If the parties themselves, in agreement, choose to do that, that is for them, and that is a principle of voluntary negotiation. It is equally a principle of voluntary negotiation that the Minister does not intervene in support of one party against another after an Industrial Court award has been made.

Mr. Monslow: While we are all hoping for a settlement, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether Sir John Elliot would have authority to settle without consultation with the Government?

Mr. Macleod: As far as I know, yes. I do not come in any way, I assure the House, into these negotiations. I have not discussed this matter at any time with Sir John.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

RACE DISCRIMINATION

3.50 p.m.

Mr. A. Fenner Brockway: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make illegal discrimination to the detriment of any person on the grounds of colour, race and religion in the United Kingdom.
This is the third occasion on which I have asked the House for permission to bring in this Bill. On the first occasion, the Bill was talked out, on the second occasion it was rather discreditably counted out, but I have taken notice of speeches delivered during those debates and I have amended the Bill to meet some of the objections which were then voiced.
I doubt whether there are many hon. Members of the House who do not accept the principle that there should be no discrimination on grounds of colour, race and religion, but very often it is urged that this is a matter for education rather than for legislation. I admit that this country is remarkably free from race prejudice. During this week many of us have had the opportunity of meeting students from Colonial Territories, and from countries which have emerged recently to independence, who are undertaking a course of Parliamentary study in this country. We have been impressed by the surprise expressed to us by them at the degree in which all races and all colours can mingle freely in our community.
When that has been acknowledged, however, there are occasions when I believe legislation is necessary, as well as education. The Bill that I am seeking to introduce draws a clear line between what may be regarded as personal relationships and public relationships. Probably the occasion when race prejudice arouses most feeling is when students and others in this country apply for lodgings, and those lodgings are denied to them on the ground of their colour.
The proposed Bill does not seek to interfere with the householder who offers

lodgings, because it would probably be going too far to ask that any person should take into his or her home anyone against whom that racial prejudice existed. What this Bill would do is to apply this principle in public places. It would apply to lodging houses, to restaurants, to dance-halls and places of entertainment. It would insist, in those cases, that no one should be denied the opportunity of entering them or enjoying them, on the ground of race, religion or colour.
The second section of public relationships with which the Bill would deal is the leasing of premises for use or occupation. There are certain cases in this country where the lease of premises is denied to coloured persons. My Bill would seek to end that possibility.
The third public relationship to which it would apply is that of employment, promotion in employment and the rate for the job, whatever the race or colour of the person may be. These are all public matters and it seems to those who are presenting the Bill with myself that they are properly the subject of legislation.
May I say, finally, that sometimes we criticise other countries, and particularly one country in the Commonwealth, for the practice of race prejudice. We shall only be free to do that fully and faithfully if we end, by legislation, the practice of race discrimination in our own public relations.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Brockway, Mr. Sorensen, Mr. Leslie Hale, Mr. Wedgwood Benn, Mr. Orbach, Miss Jennie Lee, Mr. Ian Mikardo, Mrs. Castle, Mr. Janner, Sir Leslie Plummer, Mr. Julius Silverman, and Mr. Frank Allaun.

RACE DISCRIMINATION

Bill to make illegal discrimination to the detriment of any person on the grounds of colour, race and religion in the United Kingdom, presented accordingly and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday and to be printed.[Bill 105.]

Orders of the Day — DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY (INDUSTRIAL FINANCE) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.57 p.m.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I hope that the House will not think I have taken a lease of this Box, because this is the third time within an hour that I have appeared at it. This is a short Bill and I hope, within reason, to make a fairly short speech. It is also an important development in distribution of industry policy, and I am sure that the House will want to satisfy itself that this is the correct principle before it gives a Second Reading to the Bill.
I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) in his place because he, as President of the Board of Trade in the Coalition Government, presented the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, to the House, it was carried into law by a Conservative caretaker Government and it has been operated ever since by Labour and Conservative Administrations. That seems to me, on the whole, to be a reasonably neutral parentage for distribution of industry policy. There were, of course, earlier attempts in the 'thirties to encourage the setting up of new and diverse industries started by the Commissioners for Special Areas in those areas that were hard hit by the inter-war depression.
The main powers of the 1945 Act were powers for the Board of Trade to acquire land and to build factories for letting. Secondly, there were powers to acquire derelict land and, if necessary, to undertake the clearance of those sites. Thirdly, there were powers to allow Government Departments to make grants or loans towards the improvement of basic services and, finally, there were powers given in Clause 4 of that Act to the Treasury to make grants or loans to industrial undertakings in the Development Areas. It is on this last power that the new Bill builds.
We should also note, on the negative side, that the Board of Trade has important powers in the use of industrial

development certificates, but, of course, the refusal of an I.D.C. does not necessarily mean that the development will take place in an area where the Board of Trade would like to see it, because it is open to the developer either to acquire existing industrial premises or perhaps to shelve his development altogether.
There can be no question that the distribution of industry policy, as operated under the 1945 Act, has been a very great success. Many of the areas which were hard hit by the depression in the 1930s and 1920s and scheduled under the 1945 Act, with the additions later made to it, have had a period of prosperity for some years now, but still the rates of unemployment in the Development Areas are higher—although in some cases, very little higher—than the average for Great Britain.
I do not yet have all the April figures for the Development Areas, but in March, in all Development Areas taken together, unemployment was 3·1 per cent, while for the whole of Great Britain it was 2 per cent. Unemployment in the Development Areas varied between 4 per cent. on Merseyside, the highest, to 2·1 per cent. in the North-Eastern area, the lowest. I wanted to see whether over the past rather difficult year the Development Areas had done better or worse than the rest of the country. In March, 1957, the Development Areas' average unemployment figure was 2·5 per cent., while for Great Britain it was 1·7 per cent., so the Development Areas have done a little worse over the past year than the rest of the country.
A good deal of Concern is now expressed about unemployment, and I fully share the anxiety felt about some parts of the country, yet many of the speeches made in last Friday's debate—and I dare say that it will be so with some of the speeches today—tended to push the position a little out of perspective. I will state, without comment, the position of unemployment since the war. Including the latest figure for April, 1958, the average figure has been 325,300. If anyone wishes to argue it on a party basis, up to October, 1951, the average was 338,500, and from November, 1951 to date, 312,900. I do not comment further on those figures, but they stand as a record to be compared against many of the speeches about unemployment over recent months.
As the House is familiar with our argument, whether it acepts it or not—and I do not think that hon. Members opposite accept it—I do not intend to give our general analysis of the present position. However, I will say that we feel that the major problem of unemployment today is not a lack of demand in the economy as a whole, but some areas of high and persistent unemployment which cause a great deal of concern. Those areas exist inside and outside the Development Areas, and our powers for dealing with them are very different, because where there is this sort of unemployment outside Development Areas the only powers available are the use of the Development Fund or the factory building powers of local authorities under Section 20 of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1944.
In our opinion, although very useful, these arrangements are not enough. We do not think that the time has come yet for a general reflation, but we think—and this Bill is only one of half-a-dozen measures that we have been putting before the House—that what we might call "selective reflation", if there is such a term in economists' jargon, is appropriate. If there is not such a term, there ought to be, for it expresses exactly what I mean.
In his Budget speech, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor mentioned this Bill, provision for graving docks, and the relaxation in difficult areas of the strict limit on general bank advances. Last Friday, in a short but very good debate on unemployment, I announced some modest but useful improvements in the Resettlement Transfer Scheme. All those measures are designed to deal in different ways with the same problem, that of spotty but sometimes severe unemployment. Of those measures, this Bill is the most important.
It was always intended, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland made this clear in his Second Reading speech—which I read again the other day—that the 1945 Act and distribution of industry policy were meant to be flexible, and Section 7 of that Act laid down procedure for both adding areas to and removing areas from the Schedule.
In the debate on 24th February, my right hon. Friend the President of the

Board of Trade—who, as the House knows, is abroad, or he would otherwise have moved this Second Reading—invited the opinion of hon. Members on the subject of adding some areas and taking other areas out of the Schedule. The answer he got from hon. Members whose constituencies were in the Development Areas was roughly to the effect that this might be a good idea for other Development areas, but not for the one with which they were especially concerned.
Quite apart from the merits of altering the Schedule to the 1945 Act together with its additions, the difficulty is that the procedure laid down in that Act, consultation with every local authority in each area affected to be followed by affirmative Resolutions of Parliament, is too cumbersome for this immediate problem. So we have rejected that approach to our present problem, although if hon. Members stand aside for a moment from their constituency interests they will see that such a proposal has a good deal of merit. It was clearly the intention of the 1945 Act that in due course such adjustments should take place.
After all, it is clear enough that it would be a day of rejoicing and not of sorrow for a Minister to be able to come to the House to say that an area had done so well over the years that it no longer needed the special protection of the 1945 Act. Just as we are delighted to see hospitals for infectious diseases and sanitoria being closed because there are no patients to fill them, so we would be delighted to report that an area was no longer to be a Development Area.
Already, about 18 per cent. of the insured population live in Development Areas which consist, in the main, of those areas where heavy unemployment occurred before the war. I suppose that it would have been enough to have added to the Schedule a collection of places which caused concern and where there was localised but high and persistent unemployment, but I do not think that anybody would have seen that as a satisfactory answer. The machinery of the Development Areas as laid down in the 1945 Act does not seem appropriate to us in this new and rather special problem.
I think that the Socialist Government realised this in their White Paper on the Distribution of Industry in 1948. I quote


from paragraph 90, under the heading "Unemployment Pockets":
The Government has throughout maintained the principle that to justify scheduling it must be shown that an area not only has a high rate of unemployment, but that the numbers of unemployed are high in the aggregate. This principle alone might be taken to dispose of the claim to Development Area status of such places as Nantlle Valley and Blaenau Festiniog in North Wales and Camborne and Redruth in West Cornwall, where, though the rate of unemployment is much higher than the national average or even that for the Development Areas, the number of persons unemployed or liable to unemployment is not significant in the national total. There are, furthermore, obvious objections to scheduling areas with very small or sparse populations since the whole conception of a Development Area implies some degree of interchange and mobility of labour between neighbouring industrial centres and a labour market large enough to provide industrialists with a balanced labour force.
That argument, made ten years ago, is, on the whole, still sound, although I am not sure that I would necessarily accept it in relation to North Wales.
It is for those or rather similar reasons that we did not see further scheduling as an answer to these localised problems of unemployment. In this respect at least, scheduling has been proved to lack flexibility, and because it is flexibility above almost everything else that we must have if we are to deal with so many different problems, we put this Measure before the House.
The Bill provides the extension of the power, to which I have referred, under which the Treasury can at present make grants or loans to industrial undertakings in Development Areas. We now propose that those grants or loans should be available not only inside but outside Development Areas. We further propose an important modification of the Treasury's powers in giving financial assistance. At present, grants or loans can be made only to industrial undertakings, but there may be other types of projects which could well provide useful employment and we do not wish to rule them out by definition, as we would have to do, at the start of this exercise. We do not want to be debarred from encouraging a project, if it will help in giving employment, simply because it is not an industrial undertaking. We therefore propose that the scope should be widened to embrace any undertaking

by way of trade or business. It is important to note that this power also amends and extends the 1945 Act itself and that, therefore, the Development Areas can benefit from this extension.

Mr. J. Grimond: This may be important from the point of view of my constituency. Can we be told whether these powers can be used to assist authorities like the Herring Industry Board or the Crofters' Commission in carrying out capital undertakings, not necessarily through private individuals, but possibly through the Board, or whether it will be confined, if not to industrial undertakings, then to purely private enterprise undertakings?

Mr. Macleod: I had better look into that important question which the Leader of the Liberal Party has put. In general, the object is that the scope should be as wide as possible so that any reasonable project should be entertained under the procedure with which I am about to deal.
There are several points which hon. Members are bound to have in mind. First, we have deliberately concentrated on D.A.T.A.C., to use the initial jargon of the times—the Development Areas Treasury Advisory Committee. It seems to us that this method of giving grants or loans is the most flexible method that we can use and, therefore, the one best adapted to this problem.
If the House grants us these powers, the machinery is available and is ready. D.A.T.A.C. is already in existence and will be able to give help and advice on the commercial and financial aspects of applications for financial assistance.

Mr. Hugh Dalton: Who is the present Chairman?

Mr. Macleod: The present Chairman is Mr. Slimmings, who is a chartered accountant.
A great number of Departments are concerned in this matter, and appropriate arrangements have been made by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, at both ministerial and official level, for co-ordination and co-operation between all the Departments concerned, and through the use of similar machinery we will keep the progress we make in solving the problem of local unemployment, to which the Bill is directed, under review.
The House is bound to want to know whether we intend to publish a list of places which, in our view, will qualify. Of course, there will be such a list, but the House will readily appreciate that there is a difficulty here. It is essential that we should keep the procedure as flexible as possible. I do not think that it will be possible to lay down fixed criteria which would be equally applicable to all localities. Indeed, it seems clear that both the problem and, therefore, the solution, will vary from place to place.
I, as Minister of Labour, will be closely in touch with the President of the Board of Trade in the selection of areas, but our examination—necessarily rather a preliminary one—does not lead us to think that we could find any formula, or that any formula could be devised, which would meet all cases equally. That is our present view, but my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade will return to this point in his winding-up speech, when he has heard what hon. Members have to say.
I now come to the question of what will be done under the Bill. As it stands, the Bill is only a recipe. It may be the right one, but the proof of the particular pudding will be in the cooking. [HON. MEMBERS: "The eating."] The cooking first.

Mr. John Diamond: On a point of order. The right hon. Gentleman has said that this question is to be dealt with by D.A.T.A.C., whose Chairman is a chartered accountant, and he also says that the first thing that has to be decided is the cooking. Is that a responsible statement for a Minister to make?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order.

Mr. Macleod: The name of the Chairman of D.A.T.A.C. sounds most appropriate to any culinary activity.
In the Explanatory Memorandum to the Bill we make it clear—and it is really obvious—that no precise estimate can be given of the amount of money that we shall require. It was not possible to give it in the 1945 Act. We do not know to what extent we shall be able to persuade industrialists and others to take advantage of the Bill. All the same, we intend to use it firmly.
The House will wish to be assured that it is the aim of the Government, in exercising these extended powers, that sound development which will reduce unemployment shall not be frustrated for want of capital. Section 4 of the 1945 Act lays down certain conditions for the giving of assistance. The first condition is that the undertaking cannot, for the time being, obtain capital on reasonable terms from some other source, and the second is that the undertaking has good prospects of commercial success. That is to make sure, as far as possible, that the industries that we wish to encourage will take root, flourish and grow in the communities which they join. Subject to those conditions it is the Government's wish that sound projects should not be held up simply for want of finance. We will not hesitate to come to Parliament for the money required to provide the financial assistance recommended by our Advisory Committee and approved by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor.
Some of the doubts which have been expressed to me about the Bill—some of which are mentioned in the reasoned Amendment of my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)—can be summed up in the argument that the Bill is a blank cheque. In fact, the advances will be made from the Treasury Vote, and they will need to present Supplementary Estimates and obtain parliamentary approval for the expenditure. As in the 1945 Act, all the projects must satisfy them of their future prospects, and also that without such assistance the capital cannot be obtained on the requisite terms.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I should like to raise a point about the lack of provision of finance for a particular concern, which ipso facto, has to be a going concern with reasonable prospects of profit. If such lack of provision of capital is due to a credit squeeze, and the Government's instructions to the banks that they shall not make an issue of capital to such a firm, or supply it with credit, would that be a condition on which the firm could apply to the Treasury for money?

Mr. Macleod: I cannot answer for what view D.A.T.A.C. will take of any inquiry, but my noble Friend will recollect that in the Budget speech of the Chancellor it was laid down that any


advances made for areas about which there was special concern—not necessarily precisely the same list as that with which we are concerned—should not be held within the strict limit of bank finance which had been agreed following the measures of September last.
It is another criticism of the Bill—again, mentioned in the reasoned Amendment—that public money might be used for purposes that are difficult to defend. Public money has been used in this sort of way certainly since the 1934 Special Areas Act, and more particularly since the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945. Public money is inevitably also involved in all the various schemes for training and resettlement with which my Ministry has been concerned for many years. I do not think that it is reasonable to suggest that we should try to obtain specific sanction from Parliament for all the details of our proposals. That would be bound to destroy the speed and flexibility which are at the heart of this operation. We could not then act swiftly in any locality where serious unemployment had occurred and was likely to persist.
The Bill is in no way a departure from Government policy. We have always made it clear that although we think it right to maintain a restrictive attitude towards credit we are very ready and anxious to help in areas in which special problems arise. It is to that specific problem that the Bill is pointed. We intend to act with speed and decision in this matter, and the Bill seems to us an essential weapon to have in our armoury. On that basis I invite the House to give it a Second Reading.

Mr. Alfred Robens: As the Bill does not extend to Northern Ireland, can the Minister say how he proposes to help Northern Ireland, where unemployment is over 10 per cent.?

Mr. Macleod: I should have thought that that point came outside the immediate terms of the Bill. All previous Measures of this sort have excluded Northern Ireland. If the right hon. Gentleman would like my hon. Friend to make a specific reference to that point when he winds up the debate, I am sure that he will be very glad to do so.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: We welcome the Bill as at least a positive and useful, if rather minor and timid, act of the Government towards revitalising the present stagnant economic life of the country and checking the growth of unemployment which has been going on in recent months. The Government have sunk back into a state of lethargy in economic policy recently, and have talked from time to time very much in the language of Neville Chamberlain and Stanley Baldwin in the 1930s. The public will be glad to see even this faint glimmer of light amid the encircling gloom.

Dame Irene Ward: The original Special Areas Act, and all the thought which created this new type of machinery which the Distribution of Industry Act made use of, came out of Baldwin's own brain.

Mr. Jay: As the hon. Lady knows, extremely little was done under the first Act of 1934. However, it is a tribute to the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, that even the present Government should recognise it as the right foundation on which to build. Indeed, the Minister of Labour this afternoon paid a direct and positive tribute to that Act. Like almost every great reform introduced into this House, that Act had the honour of being opposed by doctrinaire Tories at the time, and it is, therefore, appropriate that even this very minor Bill should have the very minor credit of being opposed by the very minor group of Tories led by the stern, unbending figure of the noble Lord below the Gangway.
Evidently the Minister of Labour, in introducing the Bill, has won a victory not merely over the noble Lord but also over the Treasury, with the Board of Trade adopting a rather lukewarm, neutral attitude. Nevertheless, I hope that the House and the country will not imagine that the Bill is anything but a rather small step.
What it does, as an alternative to extending the Development Areas, is to extend only one part—and a rather small and unimportant part—of the 1945 Act. By far the most important provision of that Act, as it has turned out, is the power to build factories and set up industrial trading estates, with Government finance, in the Development Areas. This is only


a guess, but I should estimate that 90 per cent. of the new employment and production brought to those areas has been achieved by the construction of factories and trading estates under that most important single part of the Act, and that not even all the remaining 10 per cent. has been achieved by Section 4, which the Government are now extending.
I remember that when we were preparing the first Distribution of Industry Bill, in 1945, most of us thought that what subsequently became Section 4 of the Act would turn out to be more important than has proved to be the case. We then had only the pre-war days of depression to guide us, and we did not realise that in full employment conditions the possession of a factory would be a much greater incentive to a developing industry than the loan of money. Thirteen years of experience of the operation of Section 4 have shown us two things; first, that it was not such an important part of the Measure as we had thought; and, secondly, that the lending of public money for these schemes—which, ex hypothesi, had been thought too speculative by private finance—has proved much less risky from the Treasury's point of view than we then feared, and failures have been a good deal less frequent.
The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I think that the only really large development which has been mainly financed through Section 4 has been Solway Chemicals, at Whitehaven. That has been a notable success. The only major miscalculation which has turned out badly is Durham China scheme in the Tyneside area.
However, the Government are now extending the power to give loans outside the Development Areas; secondly, applying them not merely to industrial undertakings but to trade or business; and, thirdly, doing so whether or not the project in question is thought to comply with the phrase, in the original Act,
the proper distribution of industry.
All those changes widen the definition, and, therefore, the powers, of the Board of Trade and the Treasury to make loans. I gathered from the Minister that the insertion of the words "trade or business" is simply to extend the previous phrase "industrial undertaking". Perhaps we can have some elucidation of

this point later. Presumably it is to bring in certain activities such as distributive trades, and it may be that office work and the dry docks about which the Chancellor spoke are also to be included in the phrase.
I also take it that the removal of the condition about the proper distribution of industry is designed for the same purpose, and that it is the word "industry" to which the Government do not wish to be bound in future.
I have always thought that it was perhaps rather a pity, incidentally, that the phrase "financial assistance" ever got used in this Act. It rather suggests to ignorant people—the noble Lord's Amendment shows that there still are ignorant people about. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, it suggests—[Interruption.]—I am coming to the noble Lord and his Amendment in a moment—that subsidies have been used as part of Development Area policy.
I should imagine that in 90 per cent. of the cases the Government have arranged loans which have been or will be repaid and upon which interest has been earned. If this were all worked out by the accountants of whom one of my hon. Friends spoke, I think we should find, even from the financial point of view, that the loan of this money had been a good investment from the point of view of the Treasury.
In his Amendment, the noble Lord talks about the burden on the taxpayer. Of course, there is no burden on the taxpayer at all. Quite apart from the human and social aspects, there has been a profitable investment. What is far more important is that the use of this finance as loans rather than as grants has served to emphasise that the purpose of the whole operation was not solely abolishing unemployment, although that was much the most important, but the re-equipping of semi-derelict areas and building their industrial capacity. Some small part of the money may have gone for grants, so perhaps the Minister who replies to the debate will tell us the total of outright grants spent under Section 4 in the various areas since the scheme has been in force. I suspect that it has been very small, and perhaps even negligible.
The Government have decided to make unemployment the main criterion for selecting new areas, but not to put into


the Bill any actual percentage of unemployment as a test. If we are to tackle the problem in this way, both those decisions are probably right. The distribution of industry policy is, after all, a branch of employment and production policy, and not physical planning. Therefore, unemployment seems to be the right criterion.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In a great many cases the degree of unemployment is the proper yardstick for discriminating between places that need assistance and those which do not, but it is not always a good yardstick. If we looked only at the figures of unemployment in places like North-East Lancashire, where towns depend upon one particular industry, like cotton, which is doing very badly, we might come to a conclusion which would be contrary to the facts. In those areas we do not leave the people there unemployed, but drive them away. Therefore, the drift of population from the area is as good a guide in cases of that kind as is the unemployment among the people who remain there.

Mr. Jay: I am not sure. It may be a good guide. I am also not sure that that is the purpose of a distribution of industry policy. It may be the purpose of other policies.
For the reasons I have given, I think that the Minister is right not to try to put a rigid percentage of unemployment into the Bill as a criterion. I am not sure that the Government are not, perhaps inadvertently, by varying the phrase about the "balanced distribution of industry", inhibiting themselves from taking diversification, of which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is really thinking, as a criterion occasionally, as well as unemployment, in areas outside the Development areas. That is a point which we can look at later, in Committee.
Nevertheless, though we welcome the Bill so far as it goes, I should have preferred to tackle the problem much more boldly by frankly scheduling new areas as Development Areas, as well as widening the definition. That would have extended to those areas not merely the power of making loans, but the far more important power to build factories and construct trading estates. The Board

of Trade would not have been compelled to use those powers, but they would have been available if needed. Why should not North-West Wales and perhaps Barrow-in-Furness be scheduled as Development Areas today?
I suspect that the Board of Trade—I say this because of the many Answers to Questions that I have heard—and the Treasury have become rather befuddled during the last few years by the belief that the more Development Areas there are the more concentrated their efforts will be in the worst parts. I wish they would get that cobweb out of their heads. It assumes that there is some sort of limited quantity of effort, and that the more of it that goes into one area the less can go into another.
That is utter nonsense. There is no such limit, unless an artificial one is imposed by the Government regardless of the needs of each area. That is not the way the problem was conceived by the Labour Government and it should not, in my opinion, be so now.

Mr. Raymond Gower: Surely the right hon. Gentleman would agree that there must be some limit. If every part of the country is scheduled as a Development Area, no part of the country is a Development Area.

Mr. Jay: The limit should be the needs of the area and the extent of underemployment. I was going to say that the aim should be to develop any area that has surplus labour and needs to be developed. If a district within a Development Area is fully employed, the effort can be automatically relaxed in that area.
This fallacy knocking about in the head of the President of the Board of Trade, of the limited amount of effort available, allowed him to make the extremely unfortunate remark the other day about descheduling the North-East Coast. It so disturbed public opinion in the area that he had to withdraw the idea within a few weeks. I thought that he would have known he would have to do it. If Ministers would visit these areas rather more frequently they could keep in touch with the feeling in them.
It is nonsense to say that we shall be better able to help North Wales or Barrow if we deschedule the North-East Coast. We ought to give the help that is needed to North-West Wales,


Cornwall, or elsewhere, whatever the situation may be on the North-East Coast, West Cumberland, or anywhere else. That is why I should have preferred to see the Development Areas extended. No doubt one day, when full employment as a policy is no longer questioned by anybody, it may be possible to deschedule some areas, but the Government have pushed that position off to the far distant future by their deflationary policies in the last two years. The memories of people in the scheduled areas are far too distressing for any descheduling to be thinkable today.
It is a remarkable commentary on the President of the Board of Trade's knowledge of feeling in these areas, and his sensitiveness to economic prospects, that he should have made that speech about descheduling the North-East Coast, when more shipping is now laid up than at any time for the last twenty years. Only within the last few weeks we have heard of orders being cancelled and of a very important shipbuilding contract being lost to the Clyde.
Because we welcome the small advance which is made by the Bill, it does not mean that we are at all satisfied with the Government's present conduct of the distribution of industry policy as a whole; very far from it. The Government are not pushing hard enough or, at either end, either encouraging development in under-employed areas or steering industries away from congested areas. It is extraordinary that we should have to argue these points after the undeniable success of the distribution of industry policy immediately after the war, to which the Minister paid a tribute today. If we need an argument for pressing on more vigorously it is worth while looking at the achievements in the first early years.
I believe that Government-financed buildings in the three main Development Areas have created employment for about 50,000 people in each area. Over the areas as a whole, the building of privately-financed factories encouraged by the Government has, by and large, run neck and neck with building by the Government. I would mention the British Nylon Spinners' factory, at Pontypool and Paton & Baldwin's factory, at Darlington. Direct employment from new undertakings is thus up to a figure of about 300,000 people over the whole country.

After 1945 this new employment capacity came into existence, but it had always been recognised that there is a multiplier effect, in the sense that each new factory job gives more employment in the service and distributive trades. This has usually been estimated at about one for one.
There is no serious doubt, therefore, that the post-war distribution of industry policy as a whole has found work for at least half a million people in the Development Areas who would not otherwise have been employed. If we think of the effect of that on the families concerned there must be very few Acts of Parliament passed through this House that have brought more rapid results, in terms of human happiness, than the Distribution of Industry Act. It was described on Second Reading by one Conservative hon. Member as Socialism and bureaucracy run mad and as the very antithesis of private enterprise. We now find that the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South has not merely forgotten nothing since then, but does not seem to have learned very much, either.
When we look at that achievement we ought to pay tribute, in passing, to some of those who made the Act possible. My right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) did more than any other person—

Dame Irene Ward: And Mr. Baldwin.

Mr. Jay: I shall be very glad to leave people in the North-East and elsewhere to judge who was more effective in this respect.

Dame Irene Ward: They do.

Mr. Jay: We must remember also the very many both large and small private firms which have co-operated vigorously in this enterprise. But I have often felt that the real heroes of the whole story are the skilled workers, the technicians and the foremen who have gone a long way to some unfamiliar part of the country, trained a large labour force and built up enterprises, to the credit of everybody concerned.

Mr. Gower: Will not the right hon. Gentleman be magnanimous and appreciate the extent to which trading estates, like the one at Treforest, have contributed to this result, even before


1945? Will he pay tribute to Lord Portal, who was Commissioner for the Special Areas and did splendid work before the war?

Mr. Jay: I would certainly pay a tribute to Lord Portal, but most of the factories in Treforest were built either during the war or afterwards. All that is history.
During the last few years the Government have begun to let things slide. Unemployment has begun to rise again and, worse than this, the old unbalance between distressed areas and congested areas has begun to reappear. We all know that the unemployment percentage in Wales has risen to 3·8, or nearly 4 per cent., and to 3·6 in Scotland. The Minister said that it was 4 per cent. in Merseyside. Of course, there is more than 10 per cent. of unemployment in Northern Ireland. In London and the Midlands the figure still remains at 1·3 or 1·4 per cent.
Has the Minister compared the percentages with the figures of absolute unemployment in Wales and Scotland, with the figures of only three years ago and with those of July, 1939? In Wales—and I am taking the figures for February which are the latest ones in the Statistical Digest, but that does not make much difference—there were 22,000 people unemployed in 1955. There are 36,000 this year and there were 106,000 in 1939. In 1955, unemployment was only one-fifth of the pre-war level and now it is one-third. In Scotland, it was 62,000 in 1955, 79,000 this year, and 190,000 in 1939. In 1955, it was less than one-third of the pre-war figure and now it is nearly half.
That shows rather startlingly how we have slipped back in these last three years, since Tory freedom began to work, towards the old days of depression and decay. No wonder people in those areas are beginning to be alarmed. This decline is quite clearly due to two causes: first, the general stagnation policy of the Government which is creating unemployment over the whole economy; and, secondly, their failure to steer new developments energetically from the congested to the under-employed areas. Ministers are too nerveless and flabby to do this, even after the demonstration that it can be done.
Obviously, we will never fully develop the under-employed areas if we reduce the whole country to stagnation. The new phrase, selective reflation, may be a good phrase, but it cannot work by itself. Stagnation has three effects: it starts unemployment in the congested areas, increases unemployment in the underemployed areas, and cuts down the number of new industrial development schemes coming forward.
We also believe that there has to be much more effective steering of new industrial developments away from the congested areas. That was how the problem of the old distressed areas was nearly solved in the years after the war. In 1945 about 13–15 per cent. of the population of Great Britain lived in the areas scheduled under the 1945 Act. The Minister said it was about 18 per cent. now, but let us suppose it was 15 per cent. in 1945. For several years after the war, when the first impulse was given, 50 per cent. of the new factory building was located in those areas and from 1945 to 1950 inclusive the percentage was over 30 per cent.
That was the fundamental change which brought new life to those areas. The Minister now says that the population of the Development Areas is 18 per cent. of the population of Great Britain, but the proportion of new development approved and going to those areas fell from the original 50 per cent. at the end of the war to about 25 per cent. in 1952, around 20 per cent. from 1953 to 1957, and in the last quarter of 1957—if my arithmetic is correct—it was actually under 15 per cent. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary will tell me when he replies whether I am correct. It appears that in the last three months of last year, for the first time since 1939, the Development Areas were getting actually a lower proportion of the total industrial development in the country than their population percentage.
That is why unemployment is growing again in the under-employed areas, both those which are scheduled and those which are not scheduled. I think that the Minister's heart is half, if not wholly, in the job. But if they are to do the job, the Government must have the courage to restrain new factory building in the congested areas, particularly London. I know that during the last year or two the Board


of Trade has evolved a doctrine that extensions of existing factories must normally be approved, even in the London area. If we admit that, we shall have lost the battle from the start. The great majority of new factory building, as all experience during the war and afterwards shows, is in extensions. The steering of these new developments away from congested areas is every bit as much needed in the interests of those areas as in the interests of areas such as Scotland and Wales.
I know only too well that the problem in an area like Battersea, or anywhere in Central London, is not employment but housing. New office employment is being created all over London at present. It is the inflow of people to London seeking new jobs which overloads all the public services in the London area and makes it quite impossible for London public authorities to solve the housing problem. When, in the postwar years, a well-known firm in Battersea, a firm known to the Minister of State, Board of Trade, decided to put up an extension not in Battersea but on the Jarrow Industrial Estate, I rejoiced for the sakes of both Jarrow and Battersea.
This, incidentally, is why the suggestion made in the debate on Friday about the transfer of workers from one home to another can touch only the fringe of the problem by giving grants to workers to move, for housing accommodation does not exist in London for them and there is no land on which to build. The root of the matter is that in these congested areas there are more jobs than houses and in the under-employed areas there are more houses than jobs. It is therefore physically impossible to solve this problem by trying to move workers about geographically from one place to another. It can only be done by locating new extensions in areas where labour already exists.
We learnt this hard lesson during the war, and it seems a pity that we should have to learn it over again. The task is to distribute industry properly throughout the country, not to give selected aid to a few selected areas. It was Ernest Bevin who invented the rather odd phrase, "distribution of industry" and insisted on calling a Bill by that name rather than calling it "the location of industry". He

understood this problem profoundly, as he understood many other things. He was perfectly right and that is still the inspiration which should guide us today.
We welcome the Bill for what it is worth, as a small step in the right direction. But something much bolder is necessary—something much bolder than we are ever likely to get from the muddled brains and nerveless hands of the present Government—if depressed areas are not to appear again. We in the Labour Party believe that far more energetic use should be made of the industrial development certificates to steer new developments to these areas. "Steer" was another word used by Ernest Bevin, and I still think it a good one. We also want to see more Government-financed factories built in the existing areas and, wherever necessary, new areas scheduled as Develpment Areas. It can be done; it has been done. All the powers are there, or, could very easily be taken. All that is needed is the will and energy to get on with it.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. E. M. Cooper-Key: We on this side of the House welcome the terms of approval of the Measure as voiced by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). I welcome the Bill as a sensible adaptation of what has succeeded before in giving relief to the Development Areas. The modern problem has shifted from the general areas, of heavy industries to other localities which, for various reasons, have been left behind in the general post-war economic advancement of the country.
I try not to lose an opportunity in this House of reminding Ministers and, I hope, also the gentlemen in Whitehall, of the changed circumstances in many areas since the war. Those are the coastal resort areas, especially those of the South of England, which have never fully recovered from the combined effect of war damage and enforced evacuation on a very large scale during the war of 1939–45. It is a fact that, far from benefiting from the general trend of prosperity since the war, those localities, largely peopled by elderly persons and those on fixed incomes, have suffered severely from the effects of inflation.
It is also a fact that distress, hardship and unemployment have moved from the homes of organised labour in the


industrial centres and are now to be found elsewhere, especially in middle-class areas. It seems to me that this Bill is essentially one that can provide assistance to those parts of the country. In my constituency, for instance, unemployment is a major problem. Figures have been given by other hon. Members of unemployment percentages of 2·1 per cent. and 4 per cent., but in Hastings the proportion of unemployment to the insured population is roughly 5 per cent. or 6 per cent., about five times the national average.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Is it not a fact that in those seaside towns there is a large element of the population engaged on seasonal employment? Is the percentage my hon. Friend quotes based from a winter or a summer census, or from what time of the year?

Mr. Cooper-Key: Except for the three main summer months, June, July and August, it is fairly stationary between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent. of the total insured population of the town.
It is in the power of the Minister to bring relief to these areas. I therefore welcome this Bill as a vehicle for such help. I hope that when my hon. Friend replies to the debate he will announce that the terms of the Measure include these areas. Such a gesture would go some way to soften the really murderous blow which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government has directed at these resorts in his Local Government Bill as it now stands. These areas need a shot in the arm. The Government could do something to attract light industry and private enterprise to open factories and modernised hotels and to provide up-to-date amenities, such as congress halls, in these areas. That would go some way to add to the financial strength of the local community and, in a wider context, it would add to the sum of national attractions which the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, with his new keen interest in the tourist trade, will appreciate.
I do not believe that it is socially or economically in the national interest that these areas of very restricted spending power should be allowed to drift into what between the wars were termed depressed areas. Unless something is

done thoroughly and immediately, I feel there is every likelihood of that happening.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: The Bill in my view marks the first really constructive step this Government have taken to tackle the unemployment problem in areas such as my constituency, which are not scheduled under the Distribution of Industry Act. Therefore, I give it a very warm welcome.
Our experience in North-West Wales has been that local initiative, however intelligent, however enterprising and however energetic, is nevertheless not sufficient to solve the problem. It is only fair to say that local initiative, with the assistance of funds from the Development Commission to build factories, has met with a certain limited success, but it has not reduced or halted the rising unemployment in the three North-West Wales counties. In Anglesey, for example, although we have one small factory and one medium-sized factory built through funds from the Development Commission, the unemployment figure has risen progressively in recent years and stands today at over 11 per cent. of the insured population. My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) in his intervention made a valid point when he referred to the emigration of unemployed people from these districts, because if they had stayed at home the present unemployment figure would be doubled.
There have been three major obstacles to industrial development in the areas under discussion. First, the local authorities are not equipped with the experience or the machinery or the funds to make contact with industry on a broad front. It is perfectly true that the Board of Trade has its machinery, but the fact is, that the Department has not succeeded in providing us with the industry which we need. The Board of Trade knows, or should know, well in advance what are the plans of all firms in this country for industrial expansion. It tells us that it informs industry from time to time what are the needs of our areas but—and I am trying to look at the situation as objectively as I can—it seems to me that it stops there.
Since 1945, industry has expanded in this country either in the Development Areas or in areas where expansion is not necessary and where there has always been a high level of employment. I know that the officials of the Board of Trade are anxious to help us and the Welsh Office of the Board has always shown great concern, but I do not think the Bill will be effective unless there is a thorough overhaul of the machinery of the Board of Trade and a determination within the Department to use the powers which are available to it.
The second obstacle which we have encountered has been the delay which has occurred between the application to the Development Commission for a loan to build a factory and the start of building operations. I realise that the bona fides of potential industrialists have to be examined carefully and that the terms of the proposed lease have to be agreed and so on, but I hope that under this Bill the machinery will be speeded up. The third obstacle which has faced us has been that of the non-availability of capital and high interest rates. This is a point which I made on the debate on unemployment on 24th February.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member has left out, surely, the most essential factor of all, which is the adjudication by the Board of Trade of the marketability of the products which the new factories will make, and the question whether a factory is likely to be permanent, based on the value of its products in the national economy.

Mr. Hughes: We are anxious to induce industries of substance and repute to our areas, and one of the things which the Board of Trade does is to investigate the entire scope of the work which the proposed factory will carry out, including the marketability of its product.
I was referring to the lack of availability of finance and to high interest rates. I was glad that in his Budget speech the Chancellor said that he accepted the validity of this point and proposed to relax restrictions on bank loans in unemployment areas. From my experience in this matter, bank managers have been ham-strung for far too long. They are afraid to move an inch nowadays. I think that their opinion should carry far greater authority. Few people know the needs of their areas as well

as do bank managers. I am afraid that the bank manager has been turned into a cipher concerned merely with making small overdrafts a little smaller. Mr. Clore and Mr. Fraser manipulate millions of pounds, and I am sure that they get a lot of fun and profit out of it, although I am dubious about the benefit which the country gets from their activities. No economic stringency seems to deter them. At the same time, areas such as Anglesey and Caernarvonshire have failed to get industry for the lack of a few thousand pounds.
I hope that the Bill will create a new situation for us, and I should like to know what it will do in practical terms. In his Budget speech the President of the Board of Trade was rather vague. He merely said that
… there are one or two places where we are anxious to get on with the job without delay."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 93.]
That sounds all right, but what does it mean in practice? The needs are simple and fairly obvious. First of all, the Board of Trade should use all the powers at its disposal to induce industrialists to establish factories in these areas where they are most needed. The second need is that the areas in question should have the power to provide the facilities which the potential industrialists will require.
Section 4 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, with which the Bill deals, is rather limited in its scope. The Minister should remember that local authorities in these areas are poor. He knows the product of a penny rate in Anglesey; it is very low. These local authorities will have to provide for the improvement of basic services. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that provision for these comes under Section 3 of the 1945 Act, and it is a pity that we cannot have that Section, too.
When he replies, will the Minister confirm that, if industry goes into these areas under the provisions of the Bill, the district councils will be given subsidies under the Housing Act to enable them to provide additional housing accommodation where necessary? This is a matter of considerable importance, because council house building has slowed down and even halted in some places since subsidies were withdrawn. The inquiries which we have received in Anglesey from industrialists lead me to believe that if advance


factories were erected in Anglesey they would very quickly be tenanted. I ask the hon. Member to say that the Bill will provide for advance factories in the worst pockets of unemployment.
Will the Minister be good enough to indicate exactly what steps it is proposed to take to induce industries of substance and repute to go into the areas in question? I have said that the existing Board of Trade machinery seems rather cumbersome. The Minister of Labour said in his opening speech that he did not know what advantage industrialists would take of the Bill. That seems rather vague and it is really not good enough because the Bill will not be truly effective until we have a bridge between industry and these areas and unless the Government use their powers to induce industry to move. Merely to pass the Bill to make the provisions of Section 4 available to places such as Anglesey and areas in Scotland is not sufficient unless the Government use the powers they have to induce suitable industry to move.
Lastly, will the Minister confirm that the provision of dry-dock facilities, which the Chancellor mentioned in his Budget speech, will be available to unemployment areas outside scheduled areas? I am thinking in particular of the Port of Holyhead in my constituency which has deep-water berths and which is being investigated by a number of oil companies. I think that was the very point which the Chancellor had in mind in his Budget speech.
I welcome the Bill most warmly, I hope that it will have a speedy passage to the Statute Book, and I hope that when it becomes law it will be applied imaginatively and constructively.

5.11 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: I regret that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) has left the Chamber, because I want to pay a tribute to him. Some time ago I read his autobiography and I was struck by the interest which he took in these problems in the '30s and the work which he was able to do when the Labour Government came to power in 1945. Of all the work which he did for his party, much of which I opposed and some of which I thought was foolish, I believe that the one thing which has given him most lasting pleasure

is that which he was able to do for production in the areas which suffered so bitterly in the 1930s. Had he been here I should have liked to say that to him.
On the other hand, I rather regret what was said by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), who played party politics with unemployment. [Laughter.] It is not a laughing matter for those who are unemployed. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to re-read the speech made by Oliver Lyttelton on the Second Reading of the Bill in 1945. No one contributed more in the House than Mr. Oliver Lyttelton to the passing of the Act, partly because he understood the needs and saw the possibilities. It is a great pity if we start to play narrow, party politics over an issue like this. We all have the interests of the unemployed at heart, and I hope that we shall have no more talk like that.
I support the Bill wholeheartedly and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on bringing it forward, but I want to issue one or two warnings which I hope the House will not think out of place. The Bill says that it is
To enable the Treasury to give assistance … for reducing unemployment in localities suffering from a high rate of unemployment".
What do we mean by "a high rate of unemployment"?
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North did the House, the Government and the country a disservice by what he said today. There is a great danger in exaggerating our position. We in this country have an immense amount for which to be grateful, even over unemployment. The Minister said that the highest rate of unemployment in a Development Area is 4 per cent., on Merseyside. The unemployment figure for the United Kingdom as a whole is 2 per cent. The figure for the United States is 7 per cent., Germany 8 per cent, and Canada nearly 10 per cent. From that angle alone we in this country have much for which to be grateful, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman was doing the unemployed a disservice in exaggerating and saying that the Government have done nothing for them. On world figures, from the free world, we have much of which we ought to be proud.

Mr. Jay: That may be true, but it is no comfort to those who are unemployed in this country to know that more are


unemployed elsewhere. The purpose of our speeches is to get the Government to do something for the unemployed here.

Mr. Osborne: I will come to that in a moment, but I thought the right hon. Gentleman was playing his party game.
I fear that much harder and leaner times are ahead for all of us in every industry and that more unemployment will come to this country unless we have more efficient production. On Monday my work took me to two board rooms in different parts of the country and in different trades. There I found that the overtime which has been worked for many years is now falling off. I had some figures worked out. One man who had been earning £20 is now earning £15; the £15 man is down to £12; and the £12 man is down to £9, because overtime has disappeared. That will react on all the rest of the trade in the country. In another place I found that already there was a fear of systematic short time and a four-day week.

Mr. S. Silverman: Why?

Mr. Osborne: I will explain in a moment. In many industries there is a fear that we shall be faced with a shorter working week. These figures will not be reflected in the unemployment figures, and therefore do not indicate the real problem facing the nation.
I turn to the next question. Neither this Measure nor any similar Measure can stave off the high unemployment to which the Motion refers. If we are honest, we shall say that such Measures can do a little, and that such little as they can do is to be welcomed. We welcome the Bill, but it cannot stave off the high level of general unemployment that may become a reality in the next twelve months. I say to the right hon. Member for Battersea, North that no legislation introduced by any party in this country can guarantee full employment in a free society. This nation must export one-fifth of everything it produces in order to pay for the foodstuffs and raw materials that we need to keep us going.
No Government can make the foreigner buy our goods if someone else's goods are better and cheaper, and no Act of Parliament can stave off the unemployment that will certainly come to us if our

goods are not efficiently produced to keep our prices down and our quality high. No legislation from any party can solve that problem, and it is just that problem that I want to put over to the House and the country. The person who will decide whether we are to have the high unemployment of which the reasoned Amendment speaks is not any hon. or right hon. Gentleman in this House but the foreign buyer, the man who will say, "I will not buy your goods because other people's are more attractive."
I will give the House three examples of the problem which we should consider against this Bill as touching the fringe of a much bigger problem. A few days ago, the chairman of the P. & O. Steam Navigation Company warned his shareholders that the tankers that were being bought in this country were 25 per cent. dearer than the comparable tankers which he could buy in Japan. The tragedy is that in the first quarter of this year no British shipbuilder has received one single order for a new ship from anyone, at home or abroad. For the first time, British shipbuilders have been beaten by both Japan and West Germany in the amount of tonnage launched.

Mr. Nabarro: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to present a one-sided case to the House. Surely, it is not only a matter of cost in ship production. I am sure my hon. Friend will agree that one reason for the fact that no new orders have been taken in the last few months is simply that the average load in British shipyards today is three years. That is the length of the order books.

Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend can always make his point. This is the first time I have made a speech for six months, and I hope he will allow me to continue and make mine? In answer to the point he made, the fact is that during the first quarter of this year, there have been serious cancellations, and the shipbuilders, both employers and men—and I hope my hon. Friend will listen as well as talk—fear that unemployment may result from even greater cancellations, when this three years' arrears of orders could melt away almost overnight.
Another point I want to put is that in Germany, the Netherlands, France, Spain and Denmark there was a higher production of ships in the first quarter of this


year than ever before recorded, and at a time when we were wondering what was to happen to us. The other most significant point about what is happening is that Russia, for the first time since before the war, has applied to Lloyds to have her ships re-registered. Why? It is because she is going into the export market, and will be able to sell her ships at any price she likes.
This is the background against which we must look at this Bill, but the other side of it affects the Lancashire trade. The Lancashire Master Cotton Spinners' Association issued some figures a little time ago which rather frightened me. They showed that in 1957 the average hours of spindles worked in the whole industry in Lancashire was 2,124, in Japan 4,867, in India 5,932 and in Hong Kong 8,158. If these figures persist, we shall not be faced with pockets of unemployment, with which this Bill is designed to deal, but the whole country will be in a very serious strait, and that is the prospect that I want the House to face.
My third example comes from the coal trade. The coal miners are the last people who ever thought that unemployment would affect them, but the shadow of unemployment is now beginning to appear even in the coal mining industry. Why is that? It is because our costs are too high. Now that the freight rates across the Atlantic have dropped from £6 to £1 per ton in the last twelve months, the Americans can now ship into the Western European market supplies of coal at prices below our costs. The Poles, who themselves have been selling coal to us until quite recently, are now offering coal on the European market at prices below those at which we ourselves can produce it.
There is nothing that this Bill can do to stop that, and I want the message to go out from this House to our people that, if we are to beat unemployment in either any of these local pockets, with which this Bill proposes to deal, or even in its wider aspects, that is the fact that we have got to face. It is a tragic imposition on the ordinary decent people of this country to tell them that we can pass an Act of Parliament and guarantee full employment, because we cannot do so.
There are two other points I should like to make. The first is in regard to the reasoned Amendment tabled by my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke). I regret that he has put down that Amendment, and I will tell the House why. I think it may be interpreted outside to mean that neither my noble Friend nor my other hon. Friends who have signed their names to it have any sympathy for the sufferers of unemployment, and I must say that that is not true. I think that the Amendment might give the impression that the noble Lord and his friends are indifferent to the unemployment problem. At least, I should like to assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that that is not true of the Conservative Party as a whole.
It is not true especially of the Prime Minister, and if any hon. Gentleman requires proof of that, I ask him to get HANSARD and read the speech which my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made when he was a back bencher in April, 1936. At that time, and this is a point worth making, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister voted against his own party in company with such distinguished Members of this House as Mr. Willie Gallacher, Mr. D. N. Pritt and Mr. James Maxton on behalf of the unemployed. I believe that the tremendous interest and sympathy for the unemployed of the Prime Minister is as great and keen today as it was then. I think it is grossly unfair to him for any hon. Gentleman opposite to pretend that we have no interest in the unemployed or any sympathy with them in their sufferings.
On Monday night, I watched the T.V. "Panorama" programme presented by Richard Dimbleby, who gave the greater part of his programme to the unemployed in South Wales, Northern Ireland, Tyneside—especially Jarrow—and the Clyde. If this Bill can help, even in a tiny way, the money will have been well spent, and I therefore support it. This Bill is especially designed to help to relieve local pockets of unemployment.
May I put this thought to the Minister and the House? It seems senseless to me for us to try to eliminate these local pockets of unemployment if, at the same time, by our inaction in another respect, we are actually creating other pockets


of unemployment. I was in Yorkshire on Monday, and I found that half the unemployed in Bradford, for example, are Pakistanis, and Pakistanis are still coming into Yorkshire at the rate of hundreds a week. This is a pocket of unemployment that is growing. Therefore, I want to plead with both sides of the House, difficult as this problem is, to realise that we must one day face this question of controlling immigration.
I put a Question to the Home Secretary on 17th April, in which I asked him—
… if he is aware that of Sheffield's 2,100 unemployed 575 are coloured; and, in view of the official announcement that, of the 1,600 unemployed Pakistanis in the East and West Yorkshire Ridings, 1,300 had never been employed in this country and are drawing National Assistance, if he will take steps immediately to reconsider this matter with a view to controlling all immigration in order to safeguard the jobs of workers already in this country."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 33.]
I support the Bill wholeheartedly, and I should like to see the local pockets of unemployment eliminated, but one thing I do not want is that we should send out from this House a message that we can cure unemployment by legislation. We cannot; we can help, and the first thing we have to do is to deal with the flood of new labour now coming into this country. I support the Bill and I wish it well.

5.28 p.m.

Mr. W. A. Burke: I shall be glad to have from the Minister some clarification about the position of the North-East Lancashire Development Area, and particularly of one part of that area.
The Bill, as we have been told by the Minister, is not a general replacement of the 1945 Act, and for that we are particularly glad. The Bill gives the power to the Treasury to make grants to people or industries outside Development Areas, as well as inside, as hitherto. Clause 1 provides that undertakings within the area or elsewhere may receive these grants, and from that I take it that the powers of the 1945 Act will still apply

inside the Development Area, and, in certain cases, outside.
Therefore, I hope that this new Bill does not mean any abandonment of the powers of the earlier Act or any loss of its use inside the Development Areas that have already been created. In the Budget debate on 16th April, the President of the Board of Trade said that the original purpose of the 1945 Act had been fulfilled, but, later, he stated that he would have scrapped many of the present development orders, except that the pressure of public opinion made him change his mind about it. He did go on to say that because he did not intend formally to deschedule certain areas, he would seek fresh powers. Because the President of the Board of Trade could not formally deschedule certain areas, that does not mean, I hope, that he will neglect those same areas.
North-East Lancashire was the Development Area to be scheduled last of all. However, although I assure the Minister that we are thankful for some small mercies, we have, so far, being the last, had least of the benefits of the 1945 Act. On the other hand, there were some encouraging words in what the President of the Board of Trade said in the Budget debate. He said that today's problems should be met in a different way. They can occur both inside and outside Development Areas. He went on to say:
In future, we shall confine assistance to places inside the Development Areas where it is really necessary."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 192.]
That is really my case. Inside the Development Areas, there are some places where the powers of the 1945 Act, or this new Bill, need to be used, because they are places where assistance is still vitally necessary. The purpose of the 1945 Act did not rest solely on unemployment statistics. It seems to us, today, that the Government are resting the possibilities of future help on unemployment figures solely, whereas the 1945 Act was based upon the threat, in certain areas, and the continuance of unemployment, not at a particular level or at a particular time, but over a period.

ROYAL ASSENT

5.32 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:

The House went:—and, having returned;

Mr. SPEAKER reported the Royal Assent to:

1. National Health Service Contributions Act, 1958.
2. Life Peerages Act, 1958.
3. Road Transport Lighting (Amendment) Act, 1958.
4. Milford Haven Conservancy Act, 1958.
5. Mersey Docks and Harbour Board Act, 1958.
6. Tyne Improvement Act, 1958.

DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY (INDUSTRIAL FINANCE) BILL

Question again proposed, That the Bill be now read a Second time.

5.44 p.m.

Mr. Burke: I was saying that the purpose of the 1945 Act did not depend necessarily on the level of unemployment at a particular time or in a particular place, but depended more on the threat of unemployment and also upon the need to replace industries liable to depression by industries not so liable.
It was because of the need to replace the cotton industry—which, of course, is liable to periods of depression—with industries not so liable that North-East Lancashire was made a Development Area in 1953. It is still the claim of North-East Lancashire that the cotton industry needs to be replaced by industries that are not so much dependent upon the export market. It was then, and is still, the case that North-East Lancashire is one of those places where, as the President of the Board of Trade said, assistance is still really necessary.
The cotton industry, upon which North-East Lancashire is largely dependent, could, in the opinion of the people in that area, still be capable of making a great contribution to the national wealth, but because the Government's economic policies have not protected the cotton industry in the way which we feet that it might have been protected the Govern-

ment ought to face up to the consequences of their lack of protection of the cotton industry and bring new industrial life into the areas which are suffering largely because of the decline in the cotton industry.
The people in North-East Lancashire are thankful for the help that has come their way. The Mullard Company has built a new factory and in Burnley we are about to get a new Michelin Tyre Company factory. While these additions have produced about 2,300 jobs, we have lost jobs at the rate of about 1,000 per year in Burnley. For instance, the cotton textile industry has lost 4,600 operatives in four years—that is to say, there has been a decline of about 10 per cent. of the insured population in the textile industry alone. That means that labour becomes available for other kinds of occupation. During the last two years eight mills have been closed in Burnley, three within the last six months or so.
On 12th December I asked the President of the Board of Trade what he proposed to do about this matter, and he told me that he was making inquiries. I do not know whether the Minister who is to reply to the debate can tell me the result of those inquiries. Of those mills that have been closed only two have been reoccupied. Obviously, that means that there is a great amount of accommodation available which could be used. About half a million square feet of floor space has been provided in new factories. Against that, we have lost the accommodation of those eight mills which more than wipes out that benefit.
Burnley was perhaps the most important weaving town in the world. It had at one time a population of 100,000 and 100,000 looms. The population has decreased and the cotton trade has dwindled. As a consequence, there are few towns that have lost population so heavily. The thing that disturbs them is not so much the loss of population, but the loss of insured workers. On Friday, we were told that the Ministry of Labour has a scheme for transferring labour from parts of the country to other parts and to help workers financially in doing this. Up to the present people have been leaving Burnley of their own accord. We do not want facilities to enable people to leave Burnley, but industries brought into


Burnley which will enable the people to stay.
At one time, the Board of Trade told us that a factory would be built in the area, but it could not say whether it would be near the most populated area. The Board of Trade said that if a person has to travel a reasonable distance a day, that is all right. We said that it was all right; but now they have to travel not a reasonable distance during the day, but apparently have to leave the area. It is wrong that a town which was built to house 100,000 people should be allowed to go down year after year at the rate of Burnley's rate of decline and that its insured population should also go down because of the failure of an industry which the Government might have protected.
According to the March figures, the importation of cotton cloth has gone up by 19 million square yards. That is 4½ million square yards more than our exports. This is only the third time in 200 years' history of the cotton trade that this has happened. It has happened three times very quickly. It happened in June, 1957, October, 1957, and it has happened again. In other words, this country is ceasing to be an exporter of cotton, but is becoming a net importer. It is estimated that the home market could take up each quarter about 400 million square yards of cloth. But the home market plus the net import market is a good deal higher than that. Something has to go—either the home production or foreign importation. The Government have decided that foreign importation shall stay. If that is so, they must face up to the consequences and give us some new industries to replace the declining cotton industry.
I hope that this Bill does not mean that the Board of Trade is not going to improve the area and that the Ministry of Labour will be allowed to empty the area. I hope that as a consequence of the Bill we shall not lose the powers under the 1945 Act, but that they will be used a good deal more fully than ever before.

5.52 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It was no surprise to me to hear the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) welcome the Bill. If I were sitting on the benches opposite,

and accepted the philosophy and policy of the Labour Government, I would grasp the Bill by the scruff of the neck, stick it into my Pandora's box and pull it out during the next period of Labour rule and implement it 1,000 per cent. in favour of collectivisation, inflation and gigantic take-over bids in industry.
I do not want the House to think that I am opposed to the principle of aid in the distribution of industry. The Acts that were passed in 1945 and 1950 undoubtedly have been of immense benefit to the country, particularly to those areas where it was difficult after the war to envisage a large-scale return to civil work without aids of this kind. Incidentally, after this Bill is passed the title "Distribution of Industry" will become a misnomer, because the process is now generalised and there are now to be no isolated areas which are defined for specific purposes.
I am not moving, but speaking to, the reasoned Amendment which is on the Order Paper in the name of some of my hon. Friends and myself. It is, like all Gaul, divided into three parts. There is the political problem which is presented by the publication of this Bill; there is the fiscal problem; and there is the problem of parliamentary control. I propose to say a word in due course about each of these three aspects.
First, I would like to make a comment arising out of what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne). Incidentally he illustrated his speech in favour of the Bill with a series of examples of calamitous situations in industry which arise directly out of the past period of over-full employment and inflation and not out of a period of underemployment and deflation. I thought that his speech lost in effect through selecting those series of examples. The Bill does not help him with them.
My hon. Friend regretted that I was here this afternoon seemingly advocating a return to unemployment. I deny that as much as I deny that the Government, in producing a Bill dealing with unemployment, postulates the possibility of a return to unemployment. I admit that the word appears rather nakedly in my Amendment and I should like to explain it to the House. It should not be thought that my hon. Friends and I, in attempting to frustrate this Measure, are trying to


produce again great lines of unemployed men queueing before the soup kitchens and human fodder queueing for the dole and financial relief.
There is no doubt that the country, and even people in industry who are sometimes supposed to be violently reactionary in their views, recognise that long-term structural unemployment is a human disaster, is a manifest sign of inefficiency and incompetence and is a denial of greatness in a nation. It is clear that this is so today, whatever may have been the case in past years, and that a return to the kind of structural unemployment we had before the war cannot and will not be tolerated in this country ever again by any Government.
I observe—and the right hon. Member for Battersea, North referred to it—that there is no figure put in the Bill for an acceptable degree of unemployment. Whether a figure should be put in is a matter for debate in Committee. We have had examples in the past of figures given in Government publications. This debate has been brought on at such short notice that one has not had time to do the necessary research and I apologise to the House for not being able to say categorically, for example, that the Coalition White Paper on "Full Employment", in 1944, contained a figure. I believe that there was a figure in it. If the figure was not in the White Paper itself, it was given in a speech made by the then Minister of Production, to whom reference has been made in the debate, after the publication of the White Paper.
The figure of 6 per cent., I think, was given as a tolerable limit of unemployment. Certainly, Lord Beveridge, in his famous book, "Full Employment in a Free Society", mentioned the figure of 4½ per cent., 1½ per cent. of which was estimated to be the seasonal limit, 1½ per cent. the estimated number of people who would be changing their jobs at any one stage and 1½ per cent. the estimated number of people who might be temporarily stopped. It is true to say that in recent years these speculative figures have been jettisoned. I recall that the present Leader of the Opposition—or was it Sir Stafford Cripps?—gave a figure of 3 per cent. as being a tolerable limit of unemployment.
But, generally speaking, both political parties have abandoned the idea that the

mention of any particular figure is either desirable or possible. We can only look at the facts, and the facts today are that unemployment is now 2 per cent., having been down to about 1 per cent. or just above, until very recently.
There is a theory, of which hon. Members have perhaps heard, called the theory of the 5 per cent. spread. Crudely, it is to be explained as follows—that with our present knowledge and the statistics which we amass in this country, and with the refined techniques of administration, which we have developed here probably more than in any other country in the world, through my right hon. Friend's Department and in other ways, a spread of 5 per cent. between inflation and unemployment has been established. That is to say, we can have a 5 per cent. annual inflation and no unemployment, or we can stop inflation altogether and have 5 per cent. unemployed.
Of course, we can have any combination between the two according to the policies adopted. Some people might suggest that a suitable limit today would be 3 per cent. unemployed and 2 per cent. annual inflation, wiping out debt in fifty years. Others—and they would perhaps be on the other side of the House—might say that 2 per cent. unemployment was the absolute limit and that 3 per cent. annual inflation was acceptable.

Mr. S. Silverman: Could we not have no inflation and no unemployment?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Not according to the theory of the 5 per cent. spread. It cannot be brought below the figure of 5 per cent. at the moment, although as time goes on we hope that we may be able to refine our techniques in this country even further and reduce that 5 per cent. to 4 per cent., or even 3 per cent.
Looking back over the experience of the last few years, I sometimes think that a perpetual inflation of 5 per cent. annually is worse than a 5 per cent. unemployment figure provided that the unemployment is not structural.

Mr. C. W. Gibson: Not for the unemployed.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Certainly, more far-reaching damage is done to the country by a perpetual 5 per cent. inflation than by 5 per cent. unemployed who are temporarily stopped, or are moving


from one part of the country to another in search of new jobs, or who are unemployed seasonally. I hope that better statistics and techniques may be available before long and may reduce the figure. For the present, however, we have to work on this figure of 5 per cent.
I think it became clear some time ago, certainly in the autumn of last year, when the Government acted decisively, that the nation had had enough of 5 per cent. inflation. Anyway, under various influences, the Government brought it to an end, or began to bring it to an end, last September. But according to the theory I have propounded it is axiomatic that unemployment must rise if that 5 per cent. inflation is slowed down. It is a see-saw which cannot be escaped, and when my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) sat heavily on one end of the see-saw last September my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour must have known at the time that his figure—or shall we say his figures?—would be elevated as a consequence.
That introduces the political problem which lies behind the Amendment which I have on the Order Paper. My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), in the second of two speeches which have greatly impressed the House since his resignation, put Sir Francis Drake's poetry into lucid prose. I will quote from my hon. Friend's speech in the Budget debate:
It has been a paradox of recent years—a paradox more easy, I hope, to recognise than I find it to describe—that in the midst of virtually full employment, with standards of almost every kind steadily rising—by whatever test we apply to them—still there has been over these years a deep-seated public malaise, an anxiety, a sense of insecurity, a sense of uncertainty—even of discontent—which contrasts so paradoxically with the progressive and prospering economic environment in which we have lived.
I do not think there is any one cause which can be assigned for this phenomenon, but I believe that the main cause is that we seem never as a nation, or as a Government of either complexion to have pursued any one objective long enough or with sufficient determination or firmness. We seem to have operated in these years always on too narrow margins and too subtly to have readjusted and changed our course; never following a policy through to massive success in the achievement of a known and predetermined aim. I think that people have sensed and felt that, and this malaise to which I refer is largely the result."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 217–8.]

I wholeheartily agree with that sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend. I want to ask whether the publication of the Bill is meant to imply that the Government are running away from the policies of last autumn and taking fright too soon. I want to ask a rather more dangerous question. Is this Bill a precursor of measures designed to take the lid off industrial expansion and to bring it to boiling point, as was the case in 1954 and 1955? If that is so, I say advisedly that I do not think that that policy, even if it scored a success then, would score a success a second time if it were repeated now. That is, shortly, the political problem which is presented by the Bill. How is the allegiance of the Conservative Party on these benches and in the country to be retained and exalted and made enthusiastic if the Government veer from pillar to post and from course to course?
That brings me to the fiscal problem, which I think I can express fairly shortly. By the credit squeeze, by exhortations, by instructions to the banks, by instructions to the Capital Issues Committee, by hire-purchase regulations and all the rest of the paraphernalia of control, we have slowed down inflation in recent years, but by the inexorable law about which I spoke just now we have also increased unemployment.
It seems to me that by this Bill, certainly if it is implemented on a large scale, either by this Government or by the next, we shall be using the taxpayers' money to reduce the unemployment which we have otherwise deliberately created. Quite a lot of the taxpayers' money might be used in the implementation of the Bill. I have the figures beside me. They rose to about £13 million or £14 million a year in 1946 or 1947 and since then they have been running between £7 million and £4 million annually. It is conceivable that if the Bill were implemented on a big scale a very large quantity of money passing through the Estimates would be used to correct and mitigate what had been designedly achieved in another field of public policy. It seems to me that the Government are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Perhaps I ought to say they are robbing Peter to pay Iain.
Are we getting into the position where we have Budget surpluses annually to


hold down inflation, the proceeds of which surpluses are used to let up on inflation? In other words, are we getting into a position where the public sector is chasing its own tail and, in the process, enlarging its sphere of influence and grabbing more and more from the private sector? I should like to know what are the prospects of fundamental remissions of taxation while this sort of process goes on.
The President of the Board of Trade may be judicious and circumspect in the application of public moneys to these ends. But this is the old problem. While we trust our own people, we must not put on the Statute Book something which can be used by others we do not trust. We must face the fact that this is an enabling Bill and that it contains only two safeguards. One is the Advisory Committee of the Board of Trade, to which reference has been made this afternoon, and the other is the assured solvency of the recipients of the money. The vast majority of businesses and trade in this country are solvent. The vast majority of advisory committees are capable of being packed.
Another Government, with a philosophy different from ours, a philosophy of production, production, at any cost, might rule that 1 per cent. or even ½ per cent. unemployment was intolerable. Maximum figures not being mentioned anywhere in the Bill, they might be allowed by another Government to soar to hundreds of millions of pounds, and the powers given by the Bill might be used in a series of mass bribery bids in industry.
We are not justified in putting on the Statute Book a Bill which may bring in train these undesirable possibilities, and I am sure that if the country had had more time to appreciate some of the nervous thinking which has gone into the Bill, its rather too early presentation and the lack of clear belief and understanding behind it, we should have seen a different picture.
That brings me to the last problem, the insistent need for a safeguard to be written into the Bill. I should like a term to be set to the operation of the Bill or a maximum figure stated of the expenditure envisaged in the Bill, or both, as is done in the case of the Nationalised Industries

Loans Act. I am aware that the moneys voted under the Nationalised Industries Loans Act are charged on the Consolidated Fund and do not pass through the process of Supply and go to the Select Committee on Estimates, but who thinks that the Estimates Committee is effective in checking expenditure of this kind? It is not allowed to touch the basic policy behind the expenditure of money and it can look only for economy and for value in the services given.
Who thinks that the Committee of Supply is the slightest use these days, as it is organised, to forestall the wholesale expenditure of public money? It used to be, but we deserted that, and now thousands of millions of pounds go through on the nod while the Opposition select a topic of the day of a polemical character. There is no parliamentary check, once a Bill of this kind has passed into law, on the expenditure of money under it, except the affection and trust between back benchers and their own leaders.

Mr. Iain Macleod: Surely there is the safeguard that the Treasury will have to come to the House for a Supplementary Estimate for the money spent under the Bill.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: In this year that may be so, but next year it will be in the main Estimates and will go through the process which I have described.

Mr. S. Silverman: Will there be no Supplementary Estimates then?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: It is true that Supplementary Estimates are bounding up from year to year and that the limits which some Ministers set to the degree to which the Civil Estimates can rise are soon surpassed.
The character of the industries, trades and businesses which are to be assisted should be reviewed periodically by Parliament. If the House does not agree to insert any limit of time, amount of expenditure or degree of unemployment in the Bill itself, then I think that Parliament should approve, by means of an affirmative Resolution, the localities which are to be assisted and the character of work involved. My right hon. Friend the Minister referred to the speed with


which we may have to act. Well, Parliament, if it stirs itself, can act with speed, also, and it is not beyond the wit of the Government to bring a Statutory Instrument to the House scheduling some of these areas, industries and amounts, and let it go through on an affirmative Resolution, or be thrown back at the Civil Service, as the case may be.
In conclusion, I own to a profound feeling of philosophic doubt and disappointment about this Bill. Inflation has been stopped by squeezing the private sector, and yet since the resignation of my right hon. Friend the Member for Monmouth the public sector is now being allowed to expand. Is that the practice, policy and purpose of the Conservative Party, that this should continue year by year unchecked, that remorselessly, by budgetary surpluses, the private sector should be squeezed and the public sector enlarged? I cannot believe that it is so.
I had hoped that, if the brakes had been too hastily applied last September, squeezing the private sector, and manifest unemployment was going to arise again in different parts of the country, the Government would have released the brakes where they had originally applied them and not have kept those brakes on and projected further expenditure through the State machine. I had hoped very much, since the end of the war, that, under the influence of my right hon. Friends, the Conservative Party would institute a grand recessional of State power. Since the war we have had a disproportionate amount of State control, direction, and guidance.
I quite agree that unemployment must be stemmed, but it can be stemmed by more subtle techniques than those of centralising through the taxpayer a great quantity of money and disseminating it with State influence through the Departments. I was hoping very much to see that after the initial benefits of my right hon. Friend's policy last year had begun to take effect some further return would have been made to private enterprise, private freedom and a reduction of the power and influence of government.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. John Taylor: There have been at least three main surprises in the debate so far. The first was the speech of the hon. Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key), making a

plea for his constituency. I had not thought that a place like Hastings would be within the scope and purpose of the Bill. The second one was the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), of all people, protesting against party politics entering into this matter. I should have imagined that the hon. Member was just about the most astute politician in this place, and to hear him objecting to the use of party politics in any debate whatever on any subject under the sun must surely be an exercise in mental gymnastics which even he has not very often surpassed.
The third surprise was the speech to which we have just listened from the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), or at least, some parts of it. I do not propose to comment on his speech at any great length, because many hon. Members want to speak, and some of us have constituency or district and area problems, and indeed national problems, to which we wish briefly to draw attention. All I can say about the noble Lord's speech is that it is full of very useful quotations, but I am afraid those selected will be used mostly from this side of the House as ammunition in future. However, this House always has a great affection for the undaunted supporter of lost causes. No matter what the cause may be, the hon. Member who persistently, consistently and courageously sticks to his point of view against the flowing tide always has our affection. To that extent the noble Lord has not surprised us, and many aspects of his speech contained what we expected from him. The mantle of the former Member of Parliament for Orpington, the late Sir Waldron Smithers, now falls on the worthy shoulders of the noble Lord.
I now wish to turn to the general problem which the Bill is designed at any rate to alleviate, as it affects my own native country of Scotland, which has always had a percentage level of unemployment about double that for the United Kingdom as a whole. In the 'thirties when we sought to put geographical boundaries to depressed or distressed areas, that was not possible with Scotland because all Scotland was a depressed area. Fortunately that is no longer so. There are "hard core" areas, as in other parts of Britain, areas of regular, steady permanent scheduling as depressed areas, which


have remained substantially the same. The Clyde, Tyneside, Merseyside and South Wales are all "hard core" areas, and they remain such. There has been a recurring theme in this debate up to now, at least from this side of the House, that although it is wise, prudent and sensible to extend the scope of special legislation to deal with areas in which unemployment trends are obvious, and in which unemployment is developing where it has not developed in the past, we should still maintain the provisions of the earlier Acts to deal with those "hard core" areas.
Because of changing industrial techniques, it is essential that legislation of this kind, inadequate and timid as it may be, should provide for areas in which unemployment trends are obvious, and in which future unemployment, if they are left alone and without assistance, is likely to be heavy, permanent, and, to the area concerned, disastrous. I want to speak particularly about one of these areas. It is difficult to give it a name because it is a very extensive area. To call it "East-Central Scotland" would scarcely be geographically adequate. To call it the Forth Valley would seem to be including rather more prosperous areas such as the City of Edinburgh and places on the Firth of Forth to the East.
It is that area which includes all my constituency, part of Stirlingshire, which was mentioned in detail by my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs (Mr. Malcolm MacPherson) in the debate last Friday, parts of Fife on the other side of the Firth of Forth as represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton), and parts of Midlothian and North Lanarkshire. All that area is one in which new techniques are causing the demise of the industries which gave it a previous prosperity which is now hastening to an end obvious to all.
I have spoken many times in the House about the problem of the shale oil industry and the steady decline of this, the world's first oil industry. I have tried to persuade the Government to save it and give it a life of another quarter of a century by fiscal means alone, but the Government have steadily, steadfastly and consistently set their face against that course. Only last week this industry

suffered a still further recession, and another 300 workers are redundant in an industry which has already suffered several recessions in the last two years. The shale oil industry affects areas outside my own constituency, in the neighbouring County of Midlothian, in the Calder area, where, as in many of the areas I propose to mention, there is no alternative industry, and no new industry has been brought in within the last forty years.
There are also in my constituency docks which are threatened with closure. I fear very gravely that that will be the result of recent inquiries. There will be not merely the effect upon local unemployment among the dockers, because they have a guaranteed week, but there will be an indirect effect on industries which use the docks and, finding their facilities gone, will take their businesses to other parts of the country or will close them altogether. To quote a case in point, I had from a firm using the docks a letter in which, in the course of stating their point of view and trying to persuade us to retain the docks—so far as we can persuade policies in these matters; and it is not entirely a matter for the House, although the final decision does rest with the appropriate Minister—they say:
It does appear that unless we obtain an unexpected share of foreign trade within the next two months and if the dock closes we will be forced to close down all our activities and withdraw from the West Lothian area. After such a long association, with so many employees who have given long and devoted service to the company, this would be a step which would cause us considerable distress.
These are consequential effects of these minor recessions—if they can be so described—which take place when an area is in industrial decline, or at least in industrial difficulties.
It is similar in the Stirlingshire area, which has hitherto been reasonably prosperous because of the steady demands for the products of the light castings industry. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling and Falkirk Burghs made that case in detail on Friday, and I need not go over it again. It is the same in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) and Fife, West. With the closing of existing industries and recessions in industries which proved to be rather too light—so light that the first puff of adverse wind blew them away—there is a problem in


those areas which looks like being of long-term character unless legislation of this kind can be passed to assist them.
There is also another strange factor which we must take into account when considering this type of legislation. We once regarded the coal industry as being the most stable industry in the country. That is no longer the case. In my own and neighbouring constituencies, smaller pits, which are uneconomic, having reached the end of their useful life, are, rightly and inevitably, closing. There is a tendency to concentrate pits into the larger producing pit agencies. The pit which you, Mr. Speaker, once knew extremely well some years ago is still in operation, but its days are numbered. That applies to a good many pits in the area. The result of this, obviously and inevitably, is that the younger people, who generations ago would on leaving school have gone into the mining industry, are regarding that as the last industry they would propose to adopt as their career. They are travelling very long distances to alternative, less useful, less economically desirable industries which are much less in the national interest. The problem is that even in the coal mining areas there is this decline, this steady reduction in the industry and in the manpower in it.
It is areas of this nature which we hope the Bill will help, if it is applied to such areas. I make the plea for that area because it has never at any time had any substantial influx of new industry. Here and there there have been a few small factories which have not come within the scope of Scottish Industrial Estates Ltd., except for a very small corner near the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North. Otherwise an odd factory here and there with a very small employment potential is all we have had. The area requires a large-scale influx of steady and permanent industry.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is any part of this area already a scheduled area, and, if so, how much?

Mr. Taylor: Yes, part of it is. It is difficult to say what percentage of the insured persons live in the scheduled area. I should say 50–60 per cent. reside outside the scheduled part of the area. Some of

it is not scheduled and never has been scheduled for the reason that in the past those industries were steady industries and did not have any great unemployment percentage. It is for that reason—I mentioned it at the beginning, but probably inadequately—that I do not think that the Bill is effective for areas of this description which have a new and increasing unemployment problem which they have never had before to any large extent but in which, unless they are dealt with, there will be a very heavy unemployment problem in the future.
I am making the plea in order that areas like this shall not be overlooked. In my own constituency the figure of unemployment is nearing 5 per cent. and it is increasing week by week. Once it has set in, a 5 per cent. spread is impossible to control. The weakness, in my view, in the whole of the theory known as "the 5 per cent. spread" is that one cannot control unemployment once it establishes itself. It is a snowball business and quickly gets out of control, and the more unemployment there is in an area the greater unemployment there will be in that area in a few months' time, unless something very drastic is done.
So, although the problems of the Clyde and other parts of Scotland have been adequately, frequently, eloquently and, I hope, effectively brought to the notice of the House within the last year, I make this plea for this area, which includes my own constituency, not only because it is a local, constituency interest, and it is our duty, of course, to state those things, but also because the Government must look at the changing pattern, distribution and location of industrial activity in the nation and find out where new techniques are drawing workers away, and where old industries of the first industrial revolution are dying and the industries of the new industrial revolution are not being located to replace them.
That is the main contribution I wish to make to this debate, and I make it with as much sincerity as I can, because while we talk of percentages and of 5 per cent. spreads and so on, we may be inclined to forget that it is people who comprise those percentages, human beings of flesh and blood, and when we come in contact with them, in the areas which are now being affected, and which we fear will be


affected, they make a deep impression upon our minds. We regard it as a privilege to be able to speak for them, and I hope we do so effectively.

6.35 p.m.

Mr. J. C. George: I am delighted to be able to follow the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor), who always speaks with such deep sincerity and such eloquence upon the problems in and around his constituency. He has rightly drawn to our attention the fact that statistics do not compose the whole problem of unemployment. It is the daily life of people with which we are dealing today.
I have what is perhaps a rather unusual experience for a Member on this side of the House, the experience of lengthy unemployment. I have taken part in miners' strikes extending for seven months. In the 'thirties I lived in the mining areas, and I have seen the corroding effects of unemployment. Therefore, it is wrong to say that we on this side of the House cannot appreciate the deep human problems of unemployment. Many of us know them.
I set myself the task, way back in September, of trying to keep track of the Press notices about unemployment in Scotland. For some years, as the House well knows, it has not been a matter of great moment, for we have had full employment. Indeed, it has been said to have been over-full employment. I started to keep newspaper cuttings from the two main newspapers. In recent weeks I have been swamped by a deluge of them. I could not possibly keep pace with the comments made about unemployment in Scotland. I think that that is a matter of great significance. It is quite evident that the fear and apprehension at serious unemployment expressed in the Press is but a reflection of the fear and apprehension felt about it in the country.
It is true that in Scotland in recent months we have seen the shadow coming back, in greater intensity in some parts than others. When we speak about this problem of unemployment it raises fears, anxieties and apprehensions. But we should keep a balanced mind. The first thing we should do is to look at the country as a whole and compare its fortunes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) so ably did, with

those of Europe and the rest of the world. We see, nationally, that we are extremely lucky with 2 per cent, unemployment and we Conservatives can face the world and say we have done our job well by the nation.
Then we study the Scottish problem and we see that we in Scotland are not so well placed as the nation as a whole. Unemployment has risen to about 3·6 per cent. As the hon. Member for West Lothian very rightly pointed out, we have a hard core which continues steadily to be double that of England's, an intractable hard core which is associated with the predominance of older industries in Scotland. In Scotland, 70 per cent. of our people are employed in the older industries compared with the figure of 50 per cent. employed in the older industries in England and Wales. It is because of this very high percentage in the old industries that we have that steady and higher hard core of unemployment. It is there and it is with us, but we cannot just take this percentage of unemployment in the country as a whole. We must look deeper into it than that. Can we feel comfortable about 3·6 per cent. and say that we are quite happy about it? Because with that 3·6 per cent. we have in Scotland "black spots," areas of great anxiety where much more than that 3·6 per cent. is found. We have a number of such areas in Scotland. It is for that reason I welcome the Bill, because I believe that if it is energetically applied it can do something to help those black spots.
We see them developing in other areas. The hon. Member for West Lothian mentioned the shale oil industry. Dundee is becoming now an area of great anxiety. There is 6 per cent. unemployment, and the area will endure a high percentage of unemployment unless something is done about it. I believe that this Bill can help. Greenock, which the Minister knows very well, is another area of anxiety, with an equally high level of unemployment of an intractable nature, and one we cannot see being readily cured by the expansion of existing industry or by the attraction of new industry in the normal way. Unless something unusual is done, Greenock and Dundee will remain black spots and areas of real anxiety for a long time. In the Dundee area, 6 per cent. of the men are unemployed. In


the Greenock area, nearly 7 per cent. of the men are unemployed, and they are, I think, two of the areas which the Minister of Labour had in mind and the Chancellor had in mind and the President of the Board of Trade had in mind in bringing forward this Bill.
Apart from those two or three black spots with a relatively high percentage of unemployment, we have the amazing fact that in Scotland, in the Development Areas themselves, we have more than 50 per cent. of the total unemployment, 43,000 out of 80,000. That is the point I want to put to the Minister.
We have been very successful in the Development Areas in Scotland in the last three years. Comparing them with all the Development Areas in the United Kingdom, we have done very well indeed. In 1955, we built more than 5 million sq. ft of new factory space in Scotland; in 1956, again over 5 million sq. ft. Last year, in 1957, we saw a rather dramatic and alarming drop in the Development Areas, a fall from 5 million to 1·8 million sq. ft. in the first half of the year.
In the new jobs provided we have been lucky as compared with the whole of Britain. In 1955, we had 51·6 per cent. of the new jobs created in Britain in the Development Areas. We had 54·2 per cent. in 1956. We had 48·9 per cent. in the first half of 1957. However, that 48·9 per cent. represented a fall from 5,821 new jobs provided in 1955 to 550 new jobs provided in the first half of 1957.
That is in Development Areas where the Government already have power to do a great deal. I know that in the economy we have been fighting inflation, that in the fight against inflation we have had to tighten up in many ways, but I cannot see the logic of bringing in a new Bill to tackle new areas of unemployment if we are not, at the same time, taking vigorous action within the Development Areas where, I repeat, in Scotland there is over 50 per cent. of the total unemployment.
Leaving that problem, I turn to the Bill. It is not a tremendously big Bill. In a way, it is a Bill which forearms the Minister against what may happen in years ahead. I do not know whether the Government are thinking in terms of millions, tens of millions or hundreds of

millions of pounds. I do not know the scope of the Bill, but I would ask the Government, who must be looking forward to schemes being presented to them, what is to be done about initiating the schemes? We have the Bill; we have unemployment. How can we make the two meet in a factory or any industry providing jobs? Who takes the initiative? Are we satisfied that we have a scheme by which we can induce people to come along, either by the Government's efforts or by local efforts? What sort of scheme have we in mind for inducing industry to go into these areas? In Scotland, we leave it to the Scottish Council, which has done a great deal for our country. We must always have great respect for the work done throughout the areas by those vigilant men who give so much of their time to helping the expansion of industry in Scotland.
On the question of the attraction of new industry, I would draw the attention of the Minister to a remark made by Lord Polwarth, a few days ago, in connection with the difficulties of bringing new industries to Scotland. If I may paraphrase him, he said that a difficulty which the Scottish Council has experienced over a long period in the establishment of new industry in Scotland is the complicated procedure whereby new undertakings have to consult various Government Departments before they can get clearance to go ahead and that this is very deterring compared with the procedure in other countries. I wonder whether the Minister would look at that complaint and consider what can be done about it?
In wondering what can be done about unemployment in Scotland, I looked at the process which we have to go through. We are not all rabid Nationalists. We are not all out for maximum devolution; indeed, sometimes I think that we have gone too far with it. When we look at the problem of serious unemployment, I wonder whether the present set-up is the right one to handle it quickly and efficiently? We have to deal with the Ministry of Labour and the Board of Trade. I often wonder whether London is suited to handling a serious problem in Scotland which should be dealt with quickly, and whether, in this area, we should not have a Minister with special duties to deal with unemployment.
The areas I have mentioned present the human problem to which the hon. Gentleman the Member for West Lothian referred, and in those areas there is great apprehension about the future. It is not easy to see how this Bill will cure that apprehension. For instance, the City of Dundee has depended for years upon the jute industry, which is gradually dying. What will replace it? How can this Bill be applied quickly to the provision of alternative employment in Dundee?
Sometimes I think the employers in such cities are slack in doing something for themselves. The decline in jute became obvious some time ago, and they should have been ready with new industries, or should have been studying ways and means of keeping industry alive in that town. This was not done, and there is unemployment. How can we use the money which is available to cure that unemployment? This is one aspect: how we can bring together money and the unemployed to form a new industry and relieve the trouble? I wonder whether we do enough in Scotland to deal with unemployment. It is not just a question of taking work to the workers. We must arrange for transfers.
I have looked at what has happened in the training and transfer of workers to other jobs and I find that the Ministry's schemes are not very popular. Last Friday, I was glad to hear of the additions suggested by the Minister but, generally speaking, the training schemes of the Ministry are not very popular. The average number concerned is about 2,000 at a time, and those people are mainly ex-Service and disabled men. The unemployed worker does not readily go for the Ministry's scheme of training for employment elsewhere.
Two or three weeks ago I had the good fortune to be in Luxembourg and I saw what the European Coal and Steel Community is doing in this respect. It has been facing problems of unemployment in various countries and has accepted the responsibility for making people unemployed by its acts. The High Authority has drawn up a re-adaptation scheme, and where men become unemployed because a factory or a mine cannot be run efficiently under the High Authority they are not left to find their own jobs through the labour exchanges. The re-adaptation scheme comes into

practice, 50 per cent. of the cost is met by the High Authority and the other 50 per cent. is met by the Government of the country concerned. The men concerned are re-trained for a new job, and up to now, at any rate, have been successfully put into new employment.
While welcoming the Bill as a step forward in taking work to the workers in black spot areas, I urge the Minister to reconsider whether we are doing enough in taking the workers to the work by re-training.

6.51 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I find it impossible to be enthusiastic about the Bill. I say that advisedly because the action of the Government in the Development Areas in Scotland, as well as in some other Development Areas, over the past few years has not resulted in the employment one would have wished to see in those areas.
I say to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Pollok (Mr. George) that Dundee is one of the Development Areas and that if the Government had used the Distribution of Industry Act, as they could have done, something more drastic could have been done to meet the serious problem now facing Dundee. What I fear about the Bill is that it will raise the hopes of people in areas where there is unemployment which are not scheduled as Development Areas. Unless the Government act differently from the way they have been acting in some of the Development Areas, those hopes will not materialise.
In moving the Second Reading of the Bill, the Minister spoke about acting swiftly. He said the Government were anxious and ready to help, and ended by saying that they would act with speed and decision. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. J. Taylor) and many others of us on this side of the House over the past few years have been urging the Government to act with speed and decision in the Development Areas in Scotland, and we feel strongly that they have not done so.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) seemed to be sorry that my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) had introduced politics. Politics is the expression of opposing philosophies and the application of those opposing philosophies to


the problems before us. It would be surprising indeed if we on this side of the House were not ready at all times to put forward our plans for facing the problems that are with us.
The Minister also said that unemployment was spotty but that it was severe in those spots. My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian has spoken not only about his area but about other surrounding areas. The whole of my constituency is in a Development Area, and the Bill will not help it. My complaint is that the Government already have within their power measures that would have helped my area, but they have not used those powers to the extent they might have done. I do not think unemployment is spotty in Scotland. It is a sickness found throughout my country. In some cases it is much worse than others, but it is causing great concern throughout Scotland.
When one looks at the pronouncements of the Scottish Council for Industry and of the Scottish Trade Union Congress it is clear that for a long time both bodies have been saying to the present Government that they are not convinced that the Government are doing sufficient to deal with unemployment in Scotland. The plans which both bodies have put forward to the Government time and time again have been disregarded. Now we are getting small measures, such as this Bill and the announcement made by the Minister on Friday to help workers to move from one area to another.
The latest unemployment figures given in the Digest of Statistics for February, 1958, show that in Great Britain there are 424,500 unemployed with only 209,000 vacancies. In other words, the vacancies are half the number unemployed. So even if we could move every unemployed worker to a place where there is a job, there would still be more than 200,000 workers unemployed.
I believe in a certain degree of mobility of labour if we are to aim at completely full employment, but human beings are not inanimate objects like chessmen on a board. They are people with souls, with feelings. Men and women have families, and sometimes it is impossible for them to move. That is one reason why it is important that work should

be brought to areas rather than that whole populations should move elsewhere for their work.
Another physical difficulty is housing. The Lanarkshire County Council has a rule that there must be ten years' residence in the county before anyone can get a local authority house. Of course, houses are built for key workers, but unemployed people are not all key workers; in fact, the majority are not. So, first, there are the human considerations to be borne in mind, and, secondly, there are physical considerations such as housing.
The position in Scotland of vacancies as compared with unemployed is much worse than in Great Britain generally, since there are six unemployed people to one vacancy. Does the Minister by his statement on Friday want to continue the great exodus of Scottish people to England which has taken place during the last few years? Is that the way to solve unemployment? Is it worth while to leave great areas of Scotland derelict, as will be the case if these are the only two measures of which Ministers are thinking? It seems to me to be a cock-eyed economy to spend money in moving workers from one place to another.
I believe that the hon. Member for Pollok is just as disturbed as are some of us about unemployment in our country, although he tried to say how much better off we are than some other countries. That is no comfort to the people who are unemployed.

Mr. George: It is true.

Miss Herbison: It is our duty in this House to try to take measures which will prevent unemployment growing in Britain to the extent that it is doing in America, Canada and some other countries.
The hon. Member for Pollok wondered what could be done to improve the position. There are two things in particular. From this side of the House, time and time again we have asked for advance factories to be built, but time and time again the Government have set their face against that. Only last week, in answer to a supplementary question, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said:
I recognise that this method may have been appropriate in 1945 and the years immediately


following the war, when factory accommodation of any sort was in short supply, but our experience today is that firms prefer to have factories tailor-made to suit their individual requirements".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 22nd April, 1958; Vol. 586, c. 766.]
The Scottish Council for Industry does not believe that, and my experience in my constituency proves that to be quite wrong. When a factory became vacant, we had more than one reputable firm ready to take it.
Perhaps the Minister will pay some attention to what I found in the United States of America only a few weeks ago. I went to Hazleton in Pennsylvania, which is an anthracite mining area. I went there because it is very like my area and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. Coal mining has been decreasing in the Hazleton area, and the town decided that it must have a new industry. With the Government in America believing in great private enterprise, the people of Hazleton knew that they could not hope to have any Government help, and so the citizens themselves built an advance factory. Immediately they got a tenant for it, they built a second advance factory and found a tenant for that. When I was there, a fortnight ago, they were clearing the land for a third advance factory.
I hope that from now on we shall have the support of the hon. Member for Pollok—and I am sure that it will be very valuable support—in trying to get advance factories built in these areas in Scotland to get the industry that we want.

Mr. William Hamilton: Would his help not be just as valuable in trying to get a steel strip mill, which he opposed some time ago?

Miss Herbison: I could not agree more.

Mr. George: I did not oppose the strip mill. I opposed the demand for a strip mill in Scotland not being based on objective facts.

Miss Herbison: The hon. Gentleman says that his opposition was because; the demand was not based on objective facts, but he gave all the reasons why it was stupid for us to ask for a strip mill in Scotland. There is no doubt about that. Advance factories could help the areas which are already scheduled as Development Areas.
There is a second point which was made very strongly by my right hon.

Friend, the use of industrial development certificates. If more use were made of industrial development certificates, there would be much greater hope not only in Scotland, but in Wales and in those areas in which my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) is so interested.
I am glad the figures have been given about building in Development Areas. At present, there are 3·6 per cent. unemployed in Scotland, while in London and the South-East area the figure is 1·3 per cent. One would imagine that there would be a far greater degree of new factory building projects in Scotland than in London and the South-East, but that is not the case. Those under construction in June, 1957, in London and the South-East, measured in square feet, were more than double those being built in Scotland.
The Bill may help a little in some areas which are not Development Areas, but its only chance of helping even a little is if the Government are determined to use the provisions of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, much more actively than has ever been the case since they came to power in 1951.

7.5 p.m.

Dame Irene Ward: I add my support for the Bill and congratulate my right hon. Friends on their decision to introduce it. I come from a Development Area, but I should never want to take a dog-in-the-manger attitude, because since I first entered the House of Commons I have always considered that the things most important to the happiness of the people were good jobs, good homes, security, and wages which would enable them to live happy and full lives.
I have watched with great concern the growth of unemployment in some areas, but, like my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), I regret that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) should have given a political slant to his speech. I enjoy political battles, and often indulge in them, but, looking back over the years at the many contributions made by so many hon. Members in an effort to solve the problems which have faced us since the 1930s, I always regret the tendency to enter into party strife in this matter.
I recollect that when I was first elected to the House of Commons, part of my


then constituency, Wallsend-on-Tyne, had 89 per cent. of the insured population unemployed. I hear a murmer from some hon. Members opposite about how many Tories were included in that number. I remind hon. Members that I defeated the Socialist Minister of Labour, Margaret Bondfield. I live in that part of the country and I am proud of it and profoundly grateful to all those who have helped to make the North-East Coast much more secure and prosperous than when I was first elected to the House of Commons.
Having been here for a very long time, I want to make some observations for the sake of the record. I fully appreciate the measure of the work done by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) in the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, which undoubtedly greatly added to the earlier Special Areas legislation. It was a very great improvement upon the knowledge that had been gained. I am, therefore, grateful to him for the part that he played.
For historical reasons it is necessary to point out that when we were faced with very serious unemployment in the 1930s the first thinking, and the first taking of special action to develop new methods of helping the situation—which we are adding to now, in a new way, by the present Bill—came under the Premiership of Lord Baldwin, as he afterwards became, when he set up the special commissioner inquiries. From listening to some of the debates in the House I have come to realise that all this history is quite new to many of my hon. Friends, and also to many hon. Members opposite. I have great admiration for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, and I support his political outlook and philosophy, but I realise that he was not here in the 1930s, any more than was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who will wind up the debate tonight.
It is, therefore, right to point out that at that time of very grave unemployment the back benchers in the House of Commons were overwhelmingly Conservative. We sent out these special commissioners to examine the problems and make recommendations, which they did. We started with the Special Areas Act, which was the first Measure whose

purpose was to try to induce industrialists to go to these very difficult areas. We had the Team Valley Trading Estate, on the Tyne, and the Treforest Estate, in South Wales.
That was only the beginning. I am sure that a great deal of the thinking and the action was immature and probably ineffective, but I want to put on record the fact that, however hard we may fight for what we think is the right action to take, or whatever may be the differences in our political philosophies, in the 1930s we were not sitting back without thinking what could be done to assist the unemployed
It is only right that that should be put on the record. [Laughter.] It is all very well for hon. Members opposite to snigger, as I can hear them doing. All I say is that we felt a very great sense of responsibility in the 'thirties, and I would also point out to hon. Members opposite that in 1935, after four years of a National Government, with predominantly Tory back bench support, we won the 1935 Election. It is not true to say that the country regarded us as having no heart or sympathy for the problems that we had to face. I am proud to be here to see a further development of this process—because that is what I regard the Bill as being.
I know that the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland has taken a great interest in the trading estate at West Chirton, in my constituency, and I am grateful for the part that he has played, but the major reason for our success was that we seized the opportunity of the Special Areas Act and the Distribution of Industry Act, through the Chairman of the Trade and Commerce Committee of the County Borough of Tynemouth at that time—Alderman Irvine—and a very active, knowledgeable and vigorous Town Clerk. I am excluding myself from this, because I had nothing to do with the constituency at that time. If any hon. Member wants to know what part local authorities can play in industrial development, members of the County Borough of Tynemouth will be delighted to receive him and tell him the story of the achievement of that local authority, which based its work on the legislation which has been passed.
Many hon. Members want to speak today, so I shall raise only one specific


point. I wondered whether I should take part in the debate, but from my experience in this House, over the years, I have come to notice that if one fails to put a point at the proper time, many years afterwards, when some new Ministers and different civil servants are in office, it is pointed out that when the debate took place on such-and-such a date the point was not made, and the Ministers and Whitehall assume that there was no controversy. That is why I want to mention the problem of dry docks.
In his Budget speech, tied up with this new move forward, the Chancellor of the Exchequer—who is the principal figure, because the Treasury must supply the money—mentioned that finance would be available for the building of new dry docks. I was very glad to hear that, because the River Tyne is the premier ship repairing river in the United Kingdom, and I know that there are one or two tremendously exciting new developments now under discussion. My hon. Friend the Member for Langstone, (Mr. Stevens) pointed out that dry docks can be built only where there is water. He was a little apprehensive, as I am, about the position of the dry dock owners, who have long traditional associations with ship repairing, and who have expressed some anxiety as to what the Chancellor had in mind.
If it were so decided that a dry dock should be constructed in a suitable part of the country, I take it that under the Bill it would be possible for permission and support to be given by the Government to the detriment of Tynemouth. I do not want to do any special pleading, but this is a very important issue as between the Development Areas and the new areas that may be affected by the present legislation. I take it that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could say that a new dry dock on the Tyne would not receive the support of the Treasury Advisory Committee because the level of unemployment was not sufficiently high to warrant Government agreement to the construction of a dry dock there, and that the Government would prefer it to be built somewhere else.
We are anxious that in this effort to deal with pockets of unemployment we should not in any way do anything to

destroy the traditional and strategic water routes which have supported the United Kingdom for many years; I do not know when the first dry dock was built, but I do not think I would be wrong if I were to say "for many decades." The traditional contribution to ship repairing on the River Tyne should not be altered, and although I fully realise that our anxieties are probably unnecessary, I am raising this point in case, in years to come, somebody should say that on 30th April, 1958, when this important matter was discussed, nobody raised this point.
One of the advantages of the Bill is that there is an independent Treasury Committee on which are represented the Admiralty, shipping and shipbuilding interests as well as, I presume, trading interests. It is an independent Committee. However—and I know that hon. Members opposite who represent the Tyneside feel just as strongly as I do on this point—there is quite a problem connected with descheduling. Hon. Members opposite as well as some of my hon. Friends have pressed the President of the Board of Trade not to de-schedule our area.
The Tyneside enjoys a high state of prosperity, though we recognise the difficulties of the shipping position. It is impossible to live in my part of the country without feeling some anxiety on that score. At the same time, I do not think that it does an area any good to be over-anxious. It is very difficult to retain a proper balance, and to argue for the interests of an area while, at the same time, safeguarding the rights of that area, so that nobody should feel that we do not view our future with the greatest confidence.
The psychology of the men who went through the period of unemployment in the 1930s, and of their sons, is a very important factor in these discussions. I fully agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Louth, who spoke about retaining our competitive position in world trade. Let me refer to the miners in Durham. The right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland, naturally, paid a great deal of attention to that part of the country when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. A great many new industries have grown up in Durham County. Nevertheless, if we want the


miners to go all out for full production it is a very bad thing to suggest that there is, or is likely to be, any trade recession at all, because the psychological factor will operate, and this affects all of us. I say that advisedly.
It is a little difficult to argue for as much support as we can get to expand our industries and, at the same time, not to let it be thought that we lack any confidence in the future. We do not lack that confidence. We feel that the Minister of Transport, in giving us the Tyne Tunnel and adding to our communications—

Mr. Speaker: Order. To discuss the Tyne Tunnel is not in order on the Second Reading of this Bill.

Dame Irene Ward: I am obliged, Mr. Speaker. I shall not develop my remarks on the Tyne Tunnel. We have won that battle, and I am grateful for it.
The fact remains that we have got confidence in our area and we view its future, along with the development of nuclear power, with hope. In this connection, we should not forget the assistance that we have had from Sir Claude Gibb, and I would not like to underestimate the work done by Sir John Jarvis in Jarrow; he did a very good job for us.
I welcome the Bill because, as I say, it builds on what has gone before, and I am very glad to know that the Government—which, though I knock them about sometimes, I support because I favour the underlying philosophy of the Conservative Party—are taking this matter in hand and are acting speedily, and that the knowledge of the past is helping us to build for the future. I am quite certain, from the small experience that I have had, that any advice and help that we or the local authorities or the industrialists or the trade unions can give will be welcomed.
I welcome the Bill. I hope that it will do something for those who, when the black days have gone, will still find the future fraught with anxiety. I hope that it will bring some confidence to those who have not got jobs to know that the matter is being considered seriously and helpfully by the House of Commons today.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Goronwy Roberts: We can all join with the hon. Lady the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) in paying our respects to those hon. Members, on either side, who in the past twenty years did their best to find a solution to the gross and disgraceful problem of unemployment which distorted the economy of the country for so long.
It is for that reason that I have been very glad to listen to words of praise and appreciation of the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) in this connection. He was the pilot through this House of the 1945 Act, and, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, was largely responsible for its brilliant implementation. In seconding those words of praise, I would associate with him my right hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell), Father of the House and "father" of the Grenfell factories. They, too, were a significant contribution to a very difficult aspect of the general unemployment problem, that of the disabled and partially disabled.
As one who helps to represent an area with the highest percentage of unemployment in the whole country, I extend a cautious welcome to the Bill. I express the hope that it will lead to the establishment of new industries in counties like Caernarvon, Anglesey and Merioneth. At the same time, I profoundly regret that the Bill is so restricted that all it does is to apply one Section of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, to unemployment areas, the Section which offers financial assistance to firms to enter those areas. This may help, but I am sure it will not solve, the problem of areas like North-West Wales.
The true solution of the problem for Gwynedd in North-West Wales is to schedule the area as a Development Area. The Minister of Labour seemed to us to be three-quarters convinced that that is so. I hope that after the debate a new look will be taken at the problem of North-West Wales from the point of view which I have put forward, namely, that the real solution for chronic unemployment in those two counties is to schedule the area.
All the conditions for scheduling are there. The position in Caernarvonshire is in every respect what it was in South


Wales and Wrexham when those areas were scheduled. It is true that the numbers are lower in our areas than they were in those areas, but this is not a matter of a few hundred men. Even numerically our unemployed are very considerable, about 5,000 in Caernarvon and Anglesey alone. At the present time the percentage in those areas is the highest in the country.
What were the conditions for scheduling which the framers of the Barlow Report and of the legislation of 1945 and 1950 had in mind? Those conditions were mainly four. The first was the decline of a local, traditional, heavy industry, and it was usually coal. If we apply that to Caernarvonshire and Merioneth and substitute quarrying for coal, that condition is satisfied in regard to North-West Wales. In 1939, more than 9,000 men were employed in our slate quarries. By 1948 it was down to about half, 4,600. Today it is a bare 3,400 or only a little more than one-third of the pre-war figure.
The second criterion was lack of diversification of industry in the depressed areas, which meant that the failure of one industry could throw an entire community into economic catastrophe. That has been the case for years in the slate-quarry areas. Townships like Ffestiniog, Bethesda, Trevor and the Nantlle Valley depended exclusively upon quarrying, just as the towns of South Wales depended exclusively upon coal and perhaps one other industry. These towns now depend upon quarrying, which is dwindling, and upon National Assistance, which is mounting.
In this connection I should take issue with the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke)—I am sorry that he is not in his place—who seemed to think that what he called "over-full" employment was the only cause of inflation. Has he or any of his hon. Friends ever thought of the inflation caused by the need to pay doles and public assistance to nearly half a million idle men? That is inflation in a double sense because it costs between £100 million and £150 million annually, entirely unbacked by any sort of production. In the areas of which I speak one of the main sources of income has for years been unemployment pay and National Assistance.
The third reason for scheduling was to improve basic services such as water supplies, sewerage, roads and housing. That condition again applies with overwhelming force to areas like Anglesey and Caernarvonshire. The fourth reason for scheduling was to enable Development Areas to create new industrial sites and access to them and to improve amenities by clearing industrial waste. Certainly our quarrying areas would qualify under that head. That is the case for scheduling North-West Wales, or part of it, as a Development Area.
The mistake made by the Bill is to apply parts of the Distribution of Industry Act to our area instead of applying the whole Act to parts of our area. Failing the scheduling of those three counties, the Minister could have included in the Bill two other Sections of the 1945 Act. They would have strengthened the Bill enormously. The first is Section 3, which provides financial assistance for improving basic services like water supplies and sewerage. It is precisely these areas which need help because without proper services industry cannot enter these areas.
The application of Section 4, which is all the Bill amounts to, may, in fact, be nullified by the absence of Section 3. It is no good saying that the normal forms of grant aid will settle this problem. Take the case of the Lleyn Rural District, in my constituency, which covers an area of exceptionally high unemployment. During the past few years it has courageously embarked upon a water scheme costing more than £1 million. Of course, the scheme is grant-aided, but the rural district must find about £400,000. As a proud though apprehensive member of the ratepayers of that district, I think the Minister must agree that that is a tremendous burden to place upon a rural district which bears the highest percentage of unemployment in Great Britain.
The final stages of this scheme have been held up for months by the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. The Minister for Welsh Affairs tells us to do something to help ourselves. We embark on a vitally necessary but costly water scheme and the Minister for Welsh Affairs tells us we are going too fast. Both Ministers, by the way, are the same man. No water from that brook.
There is surely a case for applying Section 3 of the 1945 Act to areas of that type to improve basic services. There is also a case for applying Section 5 of the parent Act, which makes provision for redeeming derelict land. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Gower knows, that Section had the dual purpose of providing industrial sites and access to them and of improving amenity. Both objects would be admirably served by applying that Section to the slate-quarrying areas.
One of the consequences of the slate-quarrying industry, as many hon. Members who have visited the area know, is the vast tips of slate waste which litter the countryside for miles around the actual works. They are wasteful of land and of beauty. Some of them cover hundreds of acres. One such encroachment in my valley, the Ogwen Valley, overwhelmed an entire village, Bryn Llys, one of the most charming hamlets in Wales. Section 5 would clear those tips and improve amenity. It would be useful and congenial work for our people. It would enhance the beauty of some of the loveliest valleys in Wales and so aid the tourist industry.
I welcome the Bill. I hope it will be administered with imagination and boldness. I wish that, in addition to Section 4, Sections 3 and 5 of the parent Act had been included in the Bill. I repeat that the real answer to the problem of North-West Wales is scheduling. Even today I hope the Minister, who has spoken with sympathy and encouragement of our area, will consider adding to the Bill the Sections I have mentioned and so strengthen it for the purposes for which it was designed.

7.42 p.m.

Mr. J. A. Leavey: I, too, am glad of the opportunity to welcome the Bill. It is some comfort that in doing so I find myself in company with virtually all hon. Members who have addressed the House, with the exception of my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinching-brooke). I think that he is probably more nearly in step with the rest of us than his speech perhaps suggested.
I would go so far as to say that in some respects I have sympathy with some of the points of view that my noble

Friend expressed. I think it was a reasonable point to take that the limits of expenditure which might be involved in the Bill are not known. The last sentence of the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum says:
It is not possible to form any estimate of the increase in such expenditure which is likely to be incurred as the result of the Bill.
Were my noble Friend present, I would say that to that extent I have some sympathy with his point of view.
Before I go on to make one or two general observations about the Bill, there are two specific questions that I wish to address to my right hon. Friend. They are points of detail, which I hope he will be able to answer. The first is: what is meant by the phrase "a locality"? Secondly, I think that the House would welcome some indication of the criteria by which the Board of Trade will, in due course, decide whether a specific case is deserving either of a grant or a loan.
As I understand, the Bill is born of the fear that in our struggle to master inflation, which has been a post-war malaise that successive Governments have tried to master, we may see a most regrettable growth of unemployment where it now exists and the development of new and unwelcome pockets of unemployment. There have been some exchanges this afternoon between hon. Members on opposing sides of the House on the subject of our attitude towards unemployment. I readily accept the point made by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) that it was almost inevitable that we should find ourselves indulging in what might be termed party conflict when matters of policy conflict were involved.
Having said that, I must go further and say that I regret that again and again, over the years, we are offered a point of view by hon. Members opposite that our attitude towards unemployment is less worthy than theirs. I should have thought that if it was nothing else it was at least transgressing a tradition of this House that we do not impute dishonourable motives to political opponents, or to anyone else. My hon. Friend the Member for Pollok (Mr. George) has suffered the grave unhappiness of continued unemployment. He spoke at length on that and I shall not try to develop that theme in detail.
Today we struggle under a great question mark. It was the peg on which much of our debating of the Budget was hung. It is the question of whether we in Britain as it is today, and as we hope it will be in future, and in the world as it is today, can have stable prices, a stable cost of living, or perhaps even a reducing cost of living, a healthy balance of payments position, a £ which continues to command respect in the world, a solvent and respected system of social services, and not only full employment but useful employment. I suppose it goes without saying that it is the hope of everyone here that we can find the means to have all those blessings at the same time.
An extension of that observation, I suppose, is that in a great part of our debate this evening, and whenever we discuss economic, and social matters which are closely associated with economic matters, we find ourselves debating that possibility. I have said that I welcome the Bill and I am very glad I can accept it in company with virtually all hon. Members who have addressed the House today; but there are one or two points on which I should like some positive assurances if, in due course, it is possible for my right hon. Friend to give them.
I should like to be assured that when the Bill is put on the Statute Book and starts to be put into effect—I certainly think that it will provide a job where, hitherto, a job had not existed and will produce a wage where only unemployment benefit had hitherto existed—it will not be made an instrument by which the Government will distort the pattern of demand in any particular area. All of us in future will bring such pressure to bear as we can on the Government to implement the Bill if it should happen that we are concerned with areas where unemployment has developed.
I am sure that we shall neither serve the long-term interests of our constituents nor meet the long-term needs of the country in a changing and competitive world if this Bill is used to preserve artificially a demand for goods and services which is not in the nation's long-term interest. I hope that it will not be a Measure which will turn back the clock in the sense that funds will be provided to perpetuate

activities creating a demand which in the wisdom of the Board of Trade should not be sustained.
Where there is a potential and desirable demand there is no doubt that the powers provided in the Bill should be used. It is one of the many duties and burdens laid upon Governments in this country to strive as far as they can to ensure that the people are given the opportunity to be useful. It is the Government's responsibility to see that being useful is a rewarding function.
I have suggested that I have one apprehension about the Bill, and I have tried to put that apprehension to my right hon. Friend, but in that context I remind him that in Lancashire, and particularly in the cotton industry, we have the two qualifications which I believe are called for in the Bill. I am convinced that we have a vital role to play in the industrial life of the country, and we have the threat of unemployment. Indeed, unemployment in one form has already arrived. I hope that when the Bill becomes law such industries as the cotton industry and such areas as Lancashire, which, I am the first to admit, have suffered from having all their eggs in one basket, will be considered for help under the Bill.
I do not want to detain the House further, since most views in support of the Bill have been expressed, but I believe that the Bill could mean a great growth in confidence in those areas where there is a threat of unemployment, uncertainty and uneasiness. In a world which I am convinced will be increasingly competitive, it is a lack of confidence, a threat, an uncertainty which is probably the most demoralising single issue from which communities, large and small, are inclined to suffer.
The phrase, "I do not wish to detain the House for long," has sometimes been used to preface a speech of considerable length. I do not wish to make that mistake, and I simply say again that I very much welcome the Bill and congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing it.

7.53 p.m.

Mr. William Hamilton: I should like to welcome the Bill for rather different reasons from those given by the hon. Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Leavey) and others. I welcome it because it can do no harm, and we are


grateful for that from the Government. To the extent that it will increase flexibility in the distribution of industry, it is welcome. I think we all agree that with a dynamic economy we have to have a policy which matches that dynamism. I am bound to say, however, that the policy which the Bill seeks to adumbrate seems to be in conflict with previous policy declarations of the Government.
Before I come to that, I want to refer to a point about flexibility which has been made several times in the House in the last few years. As long ago as 1952 the Cairncross Committee reported on means of promoting economic expansion, with particular reference to Scotland, and among its recommendations were that,
industrial growth should come first, ahead even of the need to reduce unemployment in other areas.
The right hon. Gentleman has had a spate of special pleading today and I want to try to avoid that if I can, except for saying that I think the Government, of whatever complexion, must get down to the problem of deciding which areas they will encourage. Is the criterion to be the percentage of unemployment or is it to be the future economic prosperity of the country? In other words, are we to concentrate on areas which are declining or on areas which are developing?
It is no secret that among Scottish hon. Members there is a conflict of opinion on this point. I have taken the view that the Government, whether it be a Conservative Government or a Labour Government, ought to pay some attention to areas which are developing. My area is developing but it has problems of unemployment. It seems paradoxical that that should be the case. There is unemployment among women, in particular. Certain mining areas in Fife are developing and other areas are declining. We are trying to bring miners from the West of Scotland with their families into developing areas, and some of them are unwilling to come because there is no employment for their wives and families. The President of the Board of Trade has admitted that this area needs some alternative industry for women.
There is an apparent contradiction between the policy adumbrated in the Bill and policy statements made by the Government over the past few months. It is

all very well for the Government to say, "Now we shall deal with the spots of unemployment." It is easy to say that, but it is not as easy to do it when the atmosphere has completely changed from one of expansion and optimism. From the end of the war until 1955 there was a period of expansion and there was optimism. There was no talk of recession and there were no debates in the House on unemployment between 1945 and 1953–54.
The atmosphere has changed. There are feelings of apprehension throughout the country. Restrictions are the order of the day. We have a big question mark over the recession in America and its effects on this country. We have increasing difficulties in the export market. It is in that atmosphere of fear of insecurity that the Government are seeking to remedy some of the ill effects of their own policy.
The reasoned Amendment, to which the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) spoke, shows that it has undoubtedly been deliberate Government policy to increase unemployment. There can be no doubt about that. The speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not inspire any confidence in me. He forecast more unemployment this year and a likely decline in production. He went on to say, having said that some unemployment was inevitable, that nobody on the Government side wanted to see mass unemployment. I hope that is true. They are all very careful to say that, but outside bodies very often express the feelings that many politicians dare not express, and I want to quote one or two of them.
The Manchester Guardian of 25th September, 1957, said this about the measures which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Monmouth (Mr. P. Thorneycroft) introduced:
Is the Government now prepared to push its policy to the point of causing unemployment, if this is necessary to save the £. Mr. Thorneycroft did not actually say that in so many words in Washington yesterday, but the things he did say seemed to bear no other meaning.
The Financial Times of 10th October, 1957, said something similar, when it wrote that the means by which this policy could be pushed through was a rate of


5 per cent. unemployment, and we have had that figure bandied about from the other side of the House today, suggesting that we cannot cure inflation unless and until we get 5 per cent. unemployment.
The Cohen Report said almost the same thing, but this Report has not been mentioned today. The Minister was very careful—indeed, all Ministers since that Report came out have taken similar care—not to say that he supported its conclusions. Not one Minister has said it. I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he supports the conclusion in paragraph 135 of the Cohen Report, which says:
No one should be surprised or shocked if it proves necessary that the percentage of unemployment should go somewhat further.
In The Tablet for 1st March, 1958, Mr. Colin Clark said of that statement:
This statement, probably the most controversial in the Report, should not have been made … to demand a positive increase of unemployment will not only arouse furious resentment: it is also bad economics.
He went on to deal with some other subjects.
It is in that context that the Bill has been introduced. Here we have a situation in which the Chancellor in his Budget statement, and the previous Chancellor last September, said by policy and by statement that unemployment will increase and must increase if inflation is to be curbed. Yet the Government bring along this Bill and say "All right, we now have measles, but we are going to try to rub out the spots." That is exactly what the Government are saying.
In my constituency, there is grave apprehension about this problem among the coal miners, textile workers and others. I should like to think that the Bill will solve the problem, but I fear that it is like trying to cure cancer with a couple of aspirins. The fundamental point is to get at the root causes of unemployment, many of which are psychological. The epitaph which I fear we shall have to put on this Bill is that it does too little and is too late.

8.4 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: The hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. Hamilton) fell into the same error as so many hon. Members on the Opposition benches this afternoon, of exaggerating the extent of unemployment today. It is

true that there are pockets of unemployment, several of them malignant in character and unlikely to be cured by either political party or by any measures that could be taken of a legislative character, save, possibly, only by the removal of these unemployed people to other parts of the country.
The best possible example of that was given by the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. G. Roberts) in his plea for the scheduling of three counties in North Wales. The decline of the slate quarrying industry in North Wales cannot be cured by taking factories there.

Mr. Robens: Why not?

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) asks, "Why not?" He was not here this afternoon to listen to his hon. Friend's speech, but the plain fact is that the unemployed quarrymen in that part of Wales are accustomed to heavy work, and most of the factories that might be attracted to an area of that kind would be of a light industrial character. It is not only a problem of taking factories to areas where unemployment exists, but also—and I do not believe that anybody has stressed this point so far—of taking suitable industrial processes to those areas so that they might gainfully employ the type of labour which exists in surplus in that district.
There are several areas which can show a malignant form of unemployment due to a declining industry. It may be an extractive industry or a manufacturing industry, and I have already given an example of the extractive industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pollok (Mr. George), who spoke earlier, referred to Dundee, and gave an example there of a very old industry, the jute industry, which has tended to decline during the last two or three decades and which, so far as I can see, will go on declining for a long time ahead at a gradual pace.
The reason is simple. It is technological advance in the form of alternative products. Imperial Chemical Industries can now produce a product of a type of polythene for packaging and wrapping purposes far more cheaply than, for example, the jute manufacturers in Dundee can produce hessian; and who wants to use hessian for wrapping products of a modern and progressive character if one can use the best


packaging materials of its kind—polythene—which is so much more attractive and much cheaper? With that technological advance, inevitably there will be declining industries.
I should like now to put this matter of unemployment over the whole country into proper perspective. At the last Census—and my right hon. Friend will correct me if I am wrong—there were about 433,000 people registered as unemployed out of a total working population of approximately 23,200,000. Against the 433,000 people registered as unemployed, there were about 209,000 unfilled vacancies for jobs. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) suggested that the whole difference between the 209,000 and the 433,000, namely, 224,000, ought to be employed and found jobs.
What palpable nonsense. When the right hon. Member for Blyth, now sitting on the Front Opposition Bench, was Minister of Labour, he was willing to admit that on whatever day in the year one takes a census there were always tens of thousands of men and women moving from job to job. There must be a short period of transition or translation from job to job.
In fact, opinion still varies as to what constitutes full employment, but we have very nearly full employment today. We are very nearly in balance in the industrial field. If I were asked, I would say that with a working population of 23,200,000 people, it is hardly feasible to keep the economy in balance, and my interpretation of full employment in such conditions would be a figure of about 400,000, representing about 2 per cent. or slightly less.
I do not believe that most people who have studied this problem would quarrel with that assessment. I am sure that my right hon. Friend does not. When we get down the figure of registered unemployment to something less than 200,000 in relation to a working population of 23,200,000, I say that in such conditions our economy was grossly overstrained and we were suffering from all the vicissitudes which arise from a period of over-full employment, though I am the last man in the House to say that the threat of inflation may only be checked by a policy of under-employment.
I agree that there are party politics in this matter. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) deplored the fact that party politics had been introduced into the debate. I feel quite the contrary. If I had to listen to vicious, biased, highly party-political speeches of the kind made by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North and feel that I was expected to be timidly receptive to all the barbs and gibes which she hurled at the party to which I belong, without reply, I should regard that as a very sad state of affairs indeed. I propose now to reply to one or two of the points made by hon. Members opposite.
The right hon. Member for Battersea, North, in opening the debate, grossly exaggerated not only the unemployment position today, but also the effect of what even his more enlightened policy, as he seemed pleased to call it, of the location of industry, might be. We have had location of industry legislation in this country for thirteen years. It has been operating successfully for that period. The number of men and women employed in Government-finance factories in Development Areas after thirteen years is 190,000. I do not disparage that figure at all, but it is no more than that. Out of a working population of 23,200,000, 190,000 men and women have been found employment in Development Areas in Government-financed factories. That represents ¾ per cent.
As for the figure of 300,000 to 500,000 additional jobs in Development Areas, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred, that, of course, relates for the most part to factories erected by private funds and without Government assistance. That is the sort of policy which we ought to encourage. We ought not to encourage a call on public funds for Development Areas. I want coercion or persuasion of every kind to be brought to bear on firms requiring additional factory space to go to Development Areas without a call on public funds.

Mr. Jay: Does the hon. Gentleman not realise that sensible people want both and that, ever since the distribution of industry policy was started, at least half of the new employment has resulted from private firms induced, persuaded or steered into these areas by the Government? Therefore, the relevant figure is


about 300,000, even if one takes no account of the secondary effects of the policy.

Mr. Nabarro: What I am trying to do is to put the matter in proper perspective. Putting the figures at their highest, giving the best interpretation to what the right hon. Gentleman says, it is between 300,000 and 500,000 new jobs out of a total working population of 23,200,000.

Mr. Jay: Quite a lot.

Mr. Nabarro: I agree that it is quite a lot, but it is really marginal, a matter of 1½ per cent. only. It can be no more than marginal.

Mr. Jay: Mr. Jay rose—

Mr. Nabarro: I did not interrupt the right hon. Gentleman once. I sat and listened to his highly-coloured statements without interruption, but I will give way to him once more.

Mr. Jay: I only want to have the facts clear. If the hon. Member is right in saying that the total occupied population is about 24 million—

Mr. Nabarro: It is 23,200,000.

Mr. Jay: —and if the Minister of Labour is right in saying that 18 per cent. is the ratio of the Development Areas to the population of the whole country, then the total employed population in Development Areas is, presumably 4 million or 5 million. Three hundred thousand is a far more than marginal proportion of that.

Mr. Nabarro: I find the right hon. Gentleman's logistics and statistics as bad as his party politics. He has, of course, failed to take into consideration the Schedules published at the end of the 1945 Act.
That Act provided not only for scheduling but for descheduling, also. It set out in advance a number of areas which it was thought at that time might suffer from unemployment in the ensuing years. What has happened is that the schedule of areas has, very largely, been inflexible in character, for, so far as I am aware, no area has yet been de-scheduled. I think I am right in saying that, and I am glad that I have hon. Members in general agreement with me about it.
If we are to go forward on the basis of conceding requests, from every side of the House, that this or that area shall be added to the scheduled areas, we shall finish up with a state of affairs wherein a grossly excessive percentage of the industrial areas of the country is scheduled under the Act. Therefore, not only should we try to put the matter in proper perspective and appreciate that anything done under the Bill can be only strictly marginal in character—I have no desire to discourage it; it is very useful—but we must really look also very carefully at the provisions of the main Act. If we are to schedule new areas for development purposes, we must, at the same time, deschedule approximately equivalent areas elsewhere.

Mr. Robens: Why?

Mr. Nabarro: Because, if one goes forward, as I see it, with a general level of unemployment over the whole country, according to the published figures, of only 2 per cent., then, if we continue adding more and more areas to the scheduled list without reducing the original list, we shall arrive at a state of affairs whereby industrial firms are directed, if they require factory space, to far more areas than, logically, should be placed in a position to receive them. That is the crux of the matter, I think. Does the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) wish to interrupt?

Mr. S. Silverman: Obviously, having sat here since half-past two and not having interrupted anyone so far, I could not resist an invitation of that kind. I understood the hon. Member to say, a few minutes ago, that his main point was that firms should not be encouraged by financial assistance at the public expense to go to areas where it was socially desirable that they should go, but that they should be directed there—coerced, or persuaded, were the words he used—not being given any assistance, which really means directed.

Mr. Nabarro: Oh, no. The hon. Member is misrepresenting what I said. I will repeat that passage from what I said ten minutes ago. I would persuade firms—

Mr. Silverman: Without money.

Mr. Nabarro: —or coerce firms, by one means or another, to go to the Development Areas, without assistance from public funds, if I could do so—and it should be in only a small number of cases that it would be necessary to provide any public money.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Pollok, asked earlier, it is important that we should know how the Act has been operating during the last thirteen years. I have made many applications for industrial development certificates for new factories and there has never been much difficulty with the Government Departments concerned. As I understand, the principal control is exercised, in some detail, by the Board of Trade simply through the provisions, repeated in the Bill, that planning provisions must be adhered to and an industrial development certificate obtained.
So long as we have those two safeguards, it should be possible to operate the Bill and the main Act simply on the basis of attracting firms with money to these areas, without any major call on public funds. So that we may judge the efficacy of a policy of that kind, I should like my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to tell us, when he replies tonight, what the operation of the main Act has cost since 1945. I believe that the figure has not so far been given. How much money has been used in financial grants and how much money has been used in loans to companies which have gone to these areas?
Subject only to those comments on the operation of the main Act and this Bill following it, I hope that the House will regard it in its proper perspective as making only a marginal contribution towards reducing unemployment in small pockets in various parts of the country, for, after all, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth expressed so graphically, we cannot cure economic depression or loss of national or international trade by mere measures of location of industry and acts of that kind. That is merely a matter of taking in each other's washing. What matters is the overall level of our national trade.
The Bill will make a small contribution and I welcome it on that ground. But I wish right hon. and hon. Members opposite, first, would not grossly exaggerate

the extent of unemployment or even under-employment today and, secondly, would not arrogate to themselves a panacea under the general heading of "location of industry" for the cure of our national and economic troubles.

8.20 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I find myself in the very unusual and not altogether—I hope he will not mind my saying it—welcome position of agreeing with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) has said. First, I entirely agree with his repudiation of the rebuke which his hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) attempted to deliver to my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) for bringing politics into this matter. When I heard the hon. Lady the Member for Tyne-mouth (Dame Irene Ward) repeat the rebuke and in the course of her speech say that she had defeated "Maggie" Bondfield in 1921 in a constituency that had an enormous degree of unemployment, I thought that we had perhaps reached the limit of impertinence. Of course, politics enters into these matters. Why should it not?

Mr. Nabarro: Hear, hear. That is what I say.

Mr. Silverman: I was saying to the hon. Gentleman—I hope he will recover from the shock shortly—that I was agreeing with him. I have heard so much in the twenty-odd years that I have been a Member of this House about keeping this, that and the other out of politics. We were told that we must keep unemployment out of politics; we must keep old-age pensions out of politics; we must keep poverty out of politics; we must keep national health out of politics; we must keep housing and slum clearance out of politics; we must keep foreign affairs out of politics; and we must keep national defence out of politics. What in the world will be left in politics if we keep out all the things that hon. Members opposite wish to keep out, [Interruption.] My hon. Friend is mistaken; even the Rent Act was recommended from the Government Front Bench as a non-partisan non-political attempt to deal with a purely economic heritage which accumulated during the years since control was first imposed in


1914 and with which politics had nothing whatever to do.
At the same time that we are told to keep out of our party representative politics in a Parliamentary representative democratic system all the things for which politics are important, we are told that we must at any moment be ready to smash the world to smithereens in order to preserve the party representative Parliamentary political system. The whole point is that these questions, especially the question of poverty and unemployment, are approached by people who are interested in politics from fundamentally different points of view.
The hon. Member for Tynemouth spoke about the 'thirties and the problem of unemployment in those days. She mistakes what the controversy was about. Nobody has ever suggested, or hardly anybody has ever suggested, that members of the party opposite, which formed the Government during those dreadful miserable years, liked unemployment or the spectacle of people living on unemployment payments or depending on them. Nobody supposed that they were less humanitarian than the rest of us. Nobody supposed that human suffering meant less to them than it means to us. It is wrong to suppose that that was what divided one side of the House from the other. We were prepared to concede—although sometimes when we look at the measures that they recommended it requires an enormous effort to make the concession—that their intentions were right.
What we said was that their whole analysis of politics and economics as the causes of these ills was mistaken and the remedies which they intended, and perfectly sincerely intended, to cure them were themselves more likely to increase them than do any good. When the hon. Member for Louth took pride in minimising the amount of unemployment in this country now—and, indeed, he is right when he says that it is much greater in other countries—he was again mistaking the point.
I will not invite the hon. Member to do it tonight, but will he endeavour some day to consider why there should be any unemployment in the United States of America? We can understand why this should be so in Canada. One can say

that Canada may have vast riches, but it is under-populated and has not enough capital investment and its resources are not fully deployed. But why should this be so in America? What does America lack? It has all the raw materials that it needs. It has the most fertile land in the world. It has a highly intelligent, industrious and progressive-minded population. The Americans are technically the most advanced people in the world. They have the best tools, they have power and they have factories. Why should they have unemployment?

Mr. Osborne: May I interrupt the hon. Gentleman?

Mr. Silverman: Yes, if the hon. Gentleman will not be too long.

Mr. Osborne: He has asked me a question. The answer is quite simple. In a free society in which the buyer has a final choice of what he wants, there will always be a fluctuating demand. This is essential in a free society. Therefore, from time to time there will be a shift over from this demand for one series of quality goods to another. During that time there must be unemployment. The only person who can guarantee full employment in a free society is a prison governor, and I do not like that type at all.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member is learning, but it is taking him a long time. Perhaps he has progressed as he has gone along. What he is now saying, however, is exactly what his party denied in the 'thirties.
There have been a lot of comments and criticisms about the Cohen Committee and attacks upon it. I am making no attack upon it. I congratulate the Cohen Committee. I feel delighted that at the end of 30 or 40 years of propaganda of this kind we have at last found a noble Lord who is a judge and an accountant and a professor of economics all unanimously agreeing on the diagnosis about unemployment that the Socialist movement has been preaching for 40 years and that everybody on the other side of the House has always denied; that is to say, that if there is an unplanned society, there must be unemployment or inflation. That is what the Cohen Committee has said. That is what we have been saying the whole time. That is the essence of our case.

Mr. Osborne: That is why the hon. Member wants a prison society.

Mr. Silverman: That is why I want what the hon. Member chooses to call a prison society. I do not know what he means by that, but when the Cohen Committee and the hon. Member talk about a free society, they are talking in technical terms. They mean a society in which there is no central ownership of basic materials or basic services, no central economic plan and no power in the community to control the economic resources of the community for the benefit of the community. That is what the hon. Member means by a free society.

Mr. Osborne: That is why we are not Communist.

Mr. Silverman: No, it is not why we are not Communist. It is why we are not Socialist. The whole difference is that hon. Members opposite have always been very keen about objecting to any property controls. Their passion for freedom has not always extended to things of the mind or things of that kind.
When the hon. Member talks about the Communists, it is true that the Communists, like the Socialists, believe in a planned society. To that extent the hon. Member is perfectly entitled to make his point; I am not quarrelling with that. What I am saying is that it is perfectly possible to combine the fullest civil and political liberty with economic controls of basic resources and basic wealth in the interests of the community; and that not merely is it possible to combine, but that there can never be true liberty without them. Leon Blum was right when he said that there would be no democracy without Socialism, and there can be no Socialism without democracy. Until we learn that, we shall not begin to learn what this problem is.
Now, let us get back to the Bill. The hon. Member for Kidderminster, with whom I have to some extent agreed, unexpectedly—as unexpectedly to me, no doubt, as it was to him—was inclined to minimise the amount of unemployment now existing or the amount of unemployment to be expected. On the one hand, he was saying that we must always have some unemployment and that we could not possibly have a free society unless people were free to starve and free not to be employed.
On the other hand, the hon. Member was saying that we must not consider that there was any unemployment at all, because at any given moment, even in full employment, there will be found people who are changing their jobs, and on any given census day one can always find some people who at that moment do not have a job to do. That is not, however, the Government's view. They would not have introduced the Bill today unless they were satisfied that the danger of growing unemployment is a real one. That I understand to be the motivation of the Bill. The effect of the Bill in dealing with the situation is another matter. There may be even more agreement between the two sides of the House about that before we are finished.
The point is that the Government, having decided to hold back investment and to hold back production, having decided, to use the jargon that they have used, that the time has come for reflation and that, therefore, unemployment must be expected to grow, are fearful that that unemployment will show itself in so many black spots as to be incapable of concealment; and they are trying with this Bill to defeat in odd spots what is intended to be the general effect of their policy.
The Minister asked for a definition of reflation. I can tell him, Reflation occurs when somebody tries to blow up a balloon that he has already burst. That is what the Government are doing. They saw the balloon of inflation expanding and they could not stand the sight of even apparent prosperity and so they caused it to burst. That was the deflation.

Mr. Osborne: They let it down.

Mr. Silverman: They let it down, but they are afraid that too much air is escaping through some odd spots and they are now trying to patch up the balloon. If the hon. Member for Louth agrees with me, obviously I must be careful of what I say next.
Will the Government succeed? Here one is up against the fundamental criticism of the whole of the distribution of industry policy, and for a moment I want to say something which may not be entirely popular on my own side. I agree with those hon. Members, from whatever side of the House they have spoken, who said that if the whole economy is going


down it cannot be built up by redistributing it. Ultimately, questions of employment depend upon the general economic policy, the natural economic policy and its success. If that is all right, even the hard hit areas will benefit in the general prosperity. If that is not all right, nothing that can be done by way of relocation is likely to cure it, because we should never be prepared to spend enough on doing it. That has been the history of the matter.
Much has been said during this debate about the relocation of industry in the middle 'thirties. One of my bitterest memories of listening to debate after debate in this House twenty years ago is of my comrades and friends on this side of the House compelled by the exigencies of their own constituents' needs to haggle against one another, plead, argue and fight one another for the odd crumbs which the Government of the day were prepared to give them under these various redistribution of industry Acts.

Mr. Osborne: It is happening today over iron and steel.

Mr. Silverman: Yes, it is happening today, and I do not want to see it repeated. I do not say that during those years there were not improvements and ameliorations in the worst-hit areas. Of course there were in the worst-hit areas, but where were those hardest-hit areas? They were in areas whose industry was single and had broken down—South Wales with miners unemployed, Durham with miners unemployed, Tyneside with the shipbuilding and ship repairing industry at the lowest possible ebb, and Jarrow murdered by people who were perfectly ready then to exercise controls in their own private interests but are ready today to deny them to the State for exercise in the interests of the community.
These things were bad because the main industries were bad. When between 1945 and 1950 prosperity returned to these black areas, it was not because my right hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Dalton) extended his powers—although I am glad he extended them. It was because trade generally was good, because we tried to control our resources, because we tried to plan our economy, not only by these methods of assisting people to distribute industry

more evenly but also by raising the whole level of the economy of the country. Within three years of the end of the war we were producing 60 per cent. or 70 per cent. more than the country had ever produced in history before, and these areas profited by it. Their success, their returning prosperity, was not caused by the Distribution of Industry Act at all.
Let me give an example to show that this is really right. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke) gave an account of his constituency. I listened to it with the greatest possible sympathy Why should I not? His constituency neighbours mine so closely that one can pass from one to the other without knowing which of them one is in. I am not going to give for Nelson and Colne the figures corresponding to those which he gave for Burnley. I do not need to do it because in a recent debate, when the Government were asking for more money to build new towns, I gave them; because there did not seem to me to be much common sense in taking money to build new towns while the old towns which were there already were being continually drained of their populations.
This trouble in north-east Lancashire was just as bad in the middle of the 1930s as any of the troubles of the special areas, and we were never scheduled, for reasons which are well understood and which I do not need to recapitulate now—the part-time which did not get into the figures; the uninsured women's labour which did not get into the figures; the system of payments which kept a good many people off the unemployment registers. Between 1945 and 1950 Lancashire and the cotton industry were prosperous. My right hon. Friend's Act did not apply to us. We were as prosperous as Tyneside or South Wales or any of the other areas to which it applied, without any of that assistance. Cotton was prosperous: the nation as a whole was prosperous.
After that period, from 1951 onwards, the drain of population which has been going on from all that part of Lancashire for twenty-five years, and which was suspended for only five years between 1945 and 1950, has gone on; but for the past four or five years we have been a scheduled area. My hon. Friend the Member for Burnley says his constituency has gained something by it and lost more during the same time. I do not think


my constituency has gained by it at all, but without arguing about one constituency against another, taking the area as a whole, the figures are quite plain, that the drift of population away from all those towns has been continuous in spite of the Distribution of Industry Act; and the Government have had in respect of that part of Lancashire all the powers that they are now taking for other areas, and many more powers.
Why are my hon. Friends so optimistic? Why are they so trustful? Why do they think they will get any more out of the present limited expansion of the Government's powers and their application to unscheduled areas than we have had in the scheduled areas out of the much greater powers which the Government have had all the time? This is camouflage. It is insincere.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): Not insincere.

Mr. Silverman: I should not say it is insincere, says the hon. Member, but I have to challenge either the good faith of the Government or their intelligence, and they can choose for themselves which they would rather have criticised, because they cannot in intelligent good faith believe that these extra powers which they are now taking to themselves, if they are going to be used in the way their general powers under the main Act have been used in north-east Lancashire for the past four or five years, are going to do any good whatever.
I do not want to prolong the debate. It seemed to me that, though the Bill is too poor and mean and insignificant a thing to be worth voting against, it was at any rate well to put it in its right perspective and against the proper national and world background.

8.45 p.m.

Mrs. Patricia McLaughlin: I welcome this opportunity of being able to express my own personal approval of this Bill and to say that I am sorry that I disagree with the hon. Gentleman the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). The Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland for the very good reason that we have had for a number of years all the measures, and more, which are contained in this Bill, and, although they have not solved the

problem in our area, without them we would have been much worse off than we are today.
The point I want to make tonight is that when industries are encouraged to go to areas where there is unemployment, and when, in the months to come, various industries are being advised which areas are the most suitable, I hope that it will not mean that the people in those areas will expect their unemployment problem to be solved quickly, and to be solved by this Bill alone, because it cannot be done.
I was grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), who managed to slip in a request to the Minister of Labour for information about employment in Northern Ireland. I have sat through this debate because this is a national problem, not a local one. If the Bill produces sensible measures, we ought to welcome it and do our utmost to see that it is made to work.
It is frightening to realise that so often we pass legislation here and the country expects it to be a panacea for all ills. That is the last thing that this Bill could be, nor is it intended to be. We shall have to consider the problem of transport and the facilities available in the areas concerned. The hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) suggested the building of advance factories. None of these things will necessarily solve the problem, as I can say from experience. I can assure the House that the people of Northern Ireland are anxious to help in any way in which their experience can be of value in areas where factories will be set up under this new legislation.
Tonight, we have listened to points of view from all parts of the United Kingdom, but it is no use trying to get an expanding economy and starting new industries in areas where they are needed unless the economy is sound. I assure everyone here that I feel great concern for every person without a job. Hon. Members on all sides of the House know the importance of work to a man who has not got it. At the same time, we have to remember the point of view of the industrialist. Unless the economy is sound and there is a possibility of firms expanding and going to new areas; unless our £ is strong and we are able to get markets abroad for the things we shall


be making in these areas—for we cannot ourselves consume them all—we shall merely alleviate the condition temporarily.
The difficulty today is that we must have certain restrictions on industry. We must have the credit squeeze. We must hold the Bank Rate. We must impose and relax restrictions in accordance with need, and it is difficult to hold the balance between what will help an area to expand and what will prevent an industry overspending if it is not one which is suitable for a certain area.
These problems will take some time to solve. Speaking with long years of experience in a part of the United Kingdom where these problems have existed for a long time, I add my welcome to the Bill and hope that it will be a great success in the areas to which it will apply, although in my area we need even stronger measures.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. W. E. Padley: There seems to be general agreement that the Bill can have only a limited effect; indeed, the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) used the expression, "marginal effect". Of course we welcome the Bill. With 120 to 130 men in every 1,000 unemployed in Caernarvon and Anglesey, those of us who represent industrial South Wales are in favour of the expansion of Governmental powers in any way to deal with the situation in North-West Wales.
But this is a tiddler of a Bill when one considers the problem which the Government's general policy is creating. The fundamental fallacy of the argument of the noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke), who gave us Tory philosophy in all its nakedness, was the belief that it is possible to deal with structural unemployment, fractional unemployment, when there is a substantial volume of general unemployment. The truth is that the only hope of dealing with structural and fractional unemployment is when the general state of affairs in the country is one of an expanding economy.
The Minister of Labour talked about selective reflation. The truth is that in recent years, and especially since last September, the aim of the Government has been to curb industrial activity. The

Budget was aimed at curbing industrial activity and there was an expectation, even in the Chancellor's speech, that general unemployment would rise in the coming months.
I found the Minister of Labour unduly complacent about existing Development Areas, and I can give illustrations from my own constituency. When the noble Lord was talking, I could not help remembering that the Maesteg Valley, in my constituency in the 1930s, had 63 per cent. unemployed and Caerau, at the top of the valley, had 90 per cent. unemployed. At that time, there were children's boot funds and the miners' agent made the B.B.C. Appeal of the Week on its behalf.
In the post-war period, the rejuvenation of the coal mining industry, the provision of the factory at Cymmer and the four advance factories in Maesteg Valley, the paper mill and the general prosperity of the Mid-Glamorgan area made the Maesteg Valley reasonably prosperous. Unemployment ran at just above the national average, until recently. Some months ago, the Cymmer factory closed down and, despite my representations to the Board of Trade, no new tenant has been forthcoming, largely because of the general trend in industry and commerce.
Three or four Government establishments in my constituency have also been closed down. Three weeks ago, the Tondu coke works, at the bottom the Maesteg Valley, closed down and on Saturday I was told that two of the four advance factories are to close down in the first week of July. If that happens, if my representations to the Board of Trade and those of the trade unions and local authorities do not succeed, Maesteg will be back in a matter of weeks to an unemployment position three or four times as bad as that of the national average.
Those two advance factories were tenanted by a light engineering firm, which has been doing well. There are still orders for the goods which those factories produce. The problem did not arise in the Progress Drilling Machine Company in the Maesteg Valley. It arose in the parent factory, in London. It was the products being made in London for which the market fell off and it was in London that the redundancy occurred. As those of us who have represented


South Wales and other Development Areas have argued so often, when there is a recession there is always a danger that it is the branch factory in the Development Area which closes. I would sound a warning that if the Government's general policy of deflation goes much further there is a real danger of a substantial closure of branch factories in Development Areas.
It is all very well to talk about the national average unemployment figure having risen from 1 per cent. to 2 per cent., and saying that it does not very much matter whether it goes up to 3 per cent. It must be remembered that the unemployment ratio in the Development Areas is geared to the national average, and that any increase in the national figure is likely to produce an even greater increase in the figure for the Development Areas. I have made representations to the President of the Board of Trade about the problems of the Maesteg Valley, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will assure the House tonight that the Government intend to use not only the provisions in this tiddler of a Bill but also the powers which they already possess under the principal Act.
In the end, we come back to the point that, unless there is an early reversal of the Government's general deflationary policy, Bills such as that which is now before the House will not succeed in guaranteeing full employment for our people, especially those in the scheduled Development Areas.

8.56 p.m.

Mr. B. T. Parkin: The debate has continued upon a very high and animated level. There is some advantage in being called at this late hour if one wants to address only a few questions to the Parliamentary Secretary as to the way in which the Bill is to be implemented. Hon. Members on this side of the House have made very moving pleas, and have addressed very profound criticisms to the Minister, but we have not as yet had an opportunity of discussing exactly what the Board of Trade proposes to do with applications for assistance under the Bill.
Hon. Members opposite have varied in their opposition. A number of them have been opposed to the Bill, or have

felt that it would not bring about any profound results. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) and the noble Lord the hon. Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) are in agreement, although the noble Lord asks for a remission of taxation from Budget surpluses and the hon. Member for Louth, with his deep and passionate sincerity, says that Conservatives do not like unemployment, and gives the whole case away by adding, "I think that this is money well spent, for it will help to remedy unemployment in difficult areas." This surely ought not to be regarded as money spent as a sort of charity or palliatives in difficult areas; it is supposed to be an investment, and to give a return in building up an effective balanced industry. If it does not do that it is money thrown away, and it does not add up to a policy.
Hon. Members on this side of the House have some reason for doubt about the Government's policy, because they have already been warned, not in this House but by way of a very important speech made by the Home Secretary to Conservative Party supporters, in which he promised them that before the end of the life of this Parliament the Government would dismantle all the remaining controls and planning machinery which might help a Socialist Government to carry out their policy. The Conservative supporters were promised a sort of scorched earth policy between now and the General Election. Now, along comes a Bill which claims to increase the powers of the Government to deal with problems of unemployment and the location of industry. We are therefore entitled to wonder whether the intention is not to soft-pedal a little the intervention of the Board of Trade and to make this more and more a generalised Treasury matter, so that when a Treasury decision is made to restrict credit or expenditure the whole of this work will come under the axe.
Since the Bill offers a rather powerful form of patronage, it is right that we should ask how the Board of Trade proposes to implement it. The Bill refers to grants and loans. What are the Government's intentions with regard to grants? May I elaborate my question in the form of a submission as to what I think ought to be the purpose of a grant? If the Board of Trade is trying


to encourage industries to move into certain areas where there are pockets of unemployment, the Government ought to offer to the manufacturers a grant on the same principles on which subsidies are offered in agriculture. A subsidy is offered to a farmer as a reward for acting against his better judgment. If the national interest requires that a certain line of agricultural produce should be expanded, the farmer who in the ordinary way of business would say, "It is not something that I wish to grow on my land because my forefathers have found that it does not pay well", is offered a subsidy perhaps for potatoes or for ploughing up or for something else. It takes the form of an insurance against things going wrong.
The manufacturer says, "Why should I go to this area? It has certain disadvantages." Those disadvantages could surely be listed, and the Board of Trade could discuss with the manufacturer how best he could be compensated for being sent to a certain area when he may think that he would do better elsewhere. Perhaps transport, the accessibility of raw materials or the distance which the finished product has to be carried may make that little marginal difference in cost which the hon. Member for Louth is so right on insisting is important.
Would the grant go towards a modern factory? Would a new building receive compensation for the disadvantages of transport in a certain area? As for the smaller units of production, surely nothing would do more to improve efficiency than a considerable increase in the number of small and efficient factories to cut out the moving about up and down old staircases and the multiplication of labour which small manufacturers have attempted to tolerate because they dare not tie up such a large proportion of their working capital as would be required to build a new factory.
One of the disadvantages which the manufacturer will quote to the Board of Trade will be the quality of labour available and training facilities. We want to hear from the Minister what he is prepared to do about re-training local labour; not only that, but what about the training of apprentices? It is a very serious matter for a manufacturer entering a new area to ensure that youngsters entering his industry get the same sort of training which they would get in

another part of the country where the local technical colleges and methods of training have been well established for generations. Surely the Board of Trade would be in contact with the Ministry of Education in that respect.
I hope the Minister will find an opportunity to expound afresh what is the creative and positive approach of the Board of Trade to the Bill. If he is enthusiastic about it, he must be dying to get assent to the Bill in order to launch his scheme. How are the industries to be selected, and—a point that I should love to develop, but I must not because of the lateness of the hour—how are the people concerned to be selected? What sort of criteria will there be? One gets many applications, as happened in the case of the trading estates at the end of the war. A lot of extremely unlikely-looking characters turned up and wanted to function in these areas, some of them busily spoiling Perspex. Some of them worked well but some did astonishingly badly.
What will the criteria be? How do we estimate the likely value of a new process or of a new development? What are we to do to avoid stagnation in industry? This is the sort of thing that happens. A group of chaps have a new idea. They wish to make a new product and they have the technical skill to develop it. They propose to start a firm and they want to get a factory. They have the idea and the technique; all they want is to get on and make the profit. Is that what they do? No. They find that they have to become commercial travellers, advertisers and crystal gazers to see what the economic trend is likely to be. They have to read the financial newspapers and get down to all sorts of jobs other than that of coming to the point of producing their product.
Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will feel, the theological doctrinaire principles of his party notwithstanding, that he can enter into a partnership with those people, with energetic firms, and that the Bill may give an opportunity to develop it. This is an enormously wide field, and I hope that we shall be able to get an enthusiastic reply from the Parliamentary Secretary.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. F. H. Hayman: I do not want to prolong the debate but I come from Cornwall, the county which was referred to by the


Minister of Labour and by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). Moreover, I come from the constituency in Cornwall which had the worst unemployment during the inter-war years. The facts are known to the Minister of Labour and to the President of the Board of Trade, who was good enough to write to me a few weeks ago on the subject of industrial development certificates.
We are concerned about something which the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) mentioned, the ease with which he was able to get industrial development certificates for industries in which he has an interest. That brings me to the observation that many new factories have been going up in recent years between Reading and London, where there is already a surplus of factories.
In my constituency the basic industry was tin mining, which has almost passed out as an extractive industry in the normal process of that kind of enterprise. We managed in the last generation to absorb a great proportion of our population in newer and different industries, although there still remains the hard core of older men who, for one reason or another, were unable to adapt themselves to the new conditions. Again, there is in my constituency, and, indeed, the rest of Cornwall and in Plymouth, a fear of growing unemployment and of insecurity.
I thank the Minister for bringing in this modest Bill. I hope that in due course it will be followed by something larger and something which, perhaps, will cause direction of industry to counties such as mine, to North Wales and the Scottish areas which have been referred to in the debate. Immense sums of money have been invested by local authorities, with the help of Government grants, in all these localities. If these public services are allowed to decay there will have been a great wastage of public money. The question has been raised whether people in areas such as these would be able to adapt themselves to newer industries with different techniques. I say with pride that in my constituency that has been proved possible.
It may not be generally known that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was a member of a firm which built a big new textile

factory in my constituency, in my own town, after the war. There have been several extensions. It brought a new type of industry to the town and everyone has been satisfied that the workpeople have been able to adapt themselves to the new techniques. I had the privilege of going over a much smaller factory ten days ago. There I saw a textile factory making outer garments for ladies. It started in 1948 with six employees. It has trained youngsters and now there are 115 employees. The raw material comes from Scotland by passenger train and much of the goods made in the factory go back to Scotland by passenger train. The manager told me that he had the utmost satisfaction in his dealings with British Railways.
In a comparatively remote area like Cornwall there is little chance of mobility of labour. We have engineering works and a ship repairing yard, but the nearest available posts for many of their workers are 200 miles or more away. Some of the most vitally important and highly skilled men in the ship repairing yard at Falmouth are being offered, and are taking, jobs in Bristol, Avonmouth and even further away because they are frightened of the insecurity of employment in the ship repairing industry. This is at a time when a large new dry dock, capable of taking some of the largest tankers in the world, is to be opened by the Duke of Edinburgh in a fortnight.
I am grateful for the Bill as a small instalment of something for the areas which have small pockets of unemployment. I hope the Bill, when it becomes an Act, will be administered with imagination and generosity.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Houghton: I will not detain the House for more than a few minutes, although I have listened to most of the debate. It is significant that the House should spend the whole day discussing unemployment. On very few days in the last nine years in which I have been here has the House felt so concerned about this problem as it feels at present.
It seems to me that this is a Bill to deal with chronic local conditions. In so far as it is medicine at all, it is curative rather than preventive medicine. The concern which some of us have is that the Bill will not operate outside the development areas until there is a high


rate of unemployment and it is likely to persist. The combination of a high rate of unemployment and the expectation that it will persist constitutes grave local conditions.

Mr. Osborne: That is very gloomy.

Mr. Houghton: It is very gloomy indeed. It is not until those conditions exist in combination that the Bill can begin to operate, with all the delays inevitable in surveying the prospects, putting forward plans, making applications for assistance under the Bill and all the other administrative problems which necessarily arise in connections with projects of this kind.
In most cases to which the Bill will be applicable, that will be much too late. In constituencies like mine and those of other hon. Members on both sides of the House the anxiety in the minds of local people is the danger of these conditions developing and the absence of action to prevent them from developing. In a constituency like Sowerby, where industries were founded many years ago, the historical reason for an industry going there at all was probably to get water power, and that is no longer necessary as part of the processes of local industry. The terrain is difficult and communications are not easy, and yet if those communities are to survive, new industries must go there. How are they to be atracted there? The Bill does not touch that problem at all.
What is needed is a comprehensive industrial survey of Britain. I suggest that what is needed is a study of the reasons for the constant flow of industries into the enormous conurbation of the London area, providing the most fantastic problems of housing, communications, transport and local services, apart from the strategic dangers which, I admit, are now more widespread than they were a few years ago.
London can no longer supply the demands for its own labour. More and more people are required in this area if industries around London are to be manned and expanded. Yet in other parts of the country there is a drain away and there is stagnation. It is very unhealthy indeed for a township, a community, long-established, well-balanced, with its own traditions, its own civic life, its own religious and social activities, if

the young people are to drift away from that township because there is no future for them.
I suggest to the Minister that there is much more to be done than the Bill provides. Although the Government may have political objections to going further along the path of industrial planning—I hope they have not—I believe that that will be necessary before many of the problems of some parts of the country can be solved.
It is a tragedy to see stagnation in communities which were once alive and virile, which have developed skills and crafts, and which have contributed enormously in the past to Britain's export trade and her growing wealth. If those communities are to be left derelict it will be a very sad thing not only for them, but for the country. We cannot afford to concentrate all our industrial activities in a few areas of the country. We must keep them spread. There is every reason for encouraging the decentralisation of some of the huge concentrations which we now have and encouraging the development of these areas where there is land, labour, still enthusiasm and great strength of character and integrity which can go into any form of industry which can be taken there.
I sincerely hope that we shall not lose sight of this wider problem, although we are discussing at the moment the narrow issues arising where localities are in some difficulty. It would be far better if we were to look ahead and see what is the likely rate of decline of any particular industry and what will be needed to strengthen the industrial, social and economic life of these communities.
My final word is on how we can get people to develop new industries and open new factories in these areas or other areas when the general economic atmosphere is one of pessimism and restriction. That seems to me to be quite fundamental. The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) made a very gloomy prognostication as to the likely course of the level of unemployment, due to external conditions and not only to the Government's internal policies. He spoke of the new pattern of world trade, the precarious economy which we have in this country, the knife-edge on which we live all the time and the problem of how we are to maintain our standard of life


in this new world which, in many respects, is so strange to Britain, which has taken so much for granted over the years.
I make this plea not only from the constituency standpoint, though we all have our constituency responsibilities, but from the wider aspects of our advance to a higher level of industrial activity and greater wealth. All these things will come together. We cannot cure local conditions while the health of the body politic is indifferent.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Bence: When I first heard the announcement that this Bill was to be introduced, I wondered whether each of the different Departments of State knew what the others were doing, because in the last twelve months the Ministry of Supply has been doing its best to create as much unemployment in Scotland as it possibly can.
We have several Ministry of Supply establishments in Scotland. There is, for instance, the Royal Ordnance Factory at Dalmuir, where about 400 men are being told that the only employment that can be provided for them is south of the Border. Here is a factory belonging to the Government and the taxpayer in respect of which the Government decided to take away its activities and transfer them elsewhere.
There has been some running down of the factory, but the displaced men have no hope of finding employment in an area where there is already heavy unemployment, and are being told that if they wish to be retained in the employment of the Ministry of Supply they can only be employed south of the Border.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) that the increasing movement of labour, and especially skilled labour, from Scotland to the Midlands and the Metropolis, which has been going on during the last few years, is absolutely stupid. Why should we provide the taxpayers' money to pilot industries to certain areas, or even to expand industries in Scotland, already existing or to be created?
The astonishing thing is that the money which the taxpayer will provide under the Bill towards the financing of this process can be given to other industrial establishments. I wonder what that may

mean. I do not know whether it is possible within the terms of the Bill to finance the building of an hotel on some famous salmon fishing waters, to give employment to some of the lassies in the area who cannot find employment in any other direction.
I do not know whether it could go as far as that, but the Minister says that it is possible for the Bill to be used to build an hotel in the Highlands of Scotland. If a finance company could build an hotel on some well-known water which has good fishing, but which had not been very well patronised because of the lack of hotel accommodation, it might well be that the taxpayer would be financing the building of such an hotel. When there is accommodation there, the owner of the water will receive an increased revenue for the fishing rights, because the taxpayer has helped to provide an hotel for the guests.
I am a very keen angler myself. I remember that years ago, when I used to go fishing in Wales, I took a tent with me and went to a river from which the nearest hotel was seven miles. I used to go to the owner of the water, and he would say to me that I could fish there; there were no wealthy people about and no hotel for them. I was prepared to walk seven miles for a weekend's fishing. Of course, the provision of taxpayers' money to build hotels in such places would greatly increase the value of fishing rights in Scotland and Wales.
I am quite sure that the industrial workers in Clydebank who have been told that, for the purpose of Government economies, the Royal Ordnance Factory at Dalmuir is being closed or passed over to another company for operation, would not happily accept that. Those men and their families, in the interests of saving money, are to be employed south of the Border. They would not see the thing in a very good light.
The people of Clydebank will not readily appreciate the purpose of a Bill which comes from a Government, one Department of which is creating unemployment and another Department of which proposes to finance industrialists to create employment. It seems a hopelessly stupid contradiction between two Departments of State, and I suspect that the Bill is really little more than window dressing.
We have just had the laying down in John Brown's yards, in Clydebank, of the "Brittanic." Work on it has been postponed for twelve months. The project has not been cancelled, but, of course, at the next annual meeting of the Cunard Company the company will no doubt regret that work must be postponed for another twelve months. During the whole of last year there were 15 cancellations of orders to British shipyards. In the first three months of this year, there have been 14, about 160,000 tons of shipping. That clearly demonstrates that, although there is a three-year order book today, if cancellations go on at that rate, the three-year order book can, in six months, become a twelve-month order book. A very difficult situation, a rotten atmosphere, is being created on the Clyde.
The Cunard Company says that it has to postpone the replacement of this large ship, which is to cost £8 million, because its revenue was down £2 million last year and that the system of taxation and investment allowance means that the company just cannot afford to build up the reserves for the replacement of these high cost vessels in modern days. Do I take it that, under the Bill, it would be possible for the Cunard Company, to maintain employment in John Brown's shipyard, to have Government financial assistance in carrying on its capital construction programme in an area where there is unemployment?
Would it be possible for the company to make up, as it were, the deficiencies it can demonstrate to the Treasury accountants, in proving that it cannot do the job, so that it may carry on and relieve unemployment on the Clyde? Will the Cunard Company or P. & O., as consumers of capital goods, be able to get a grant under the Bill to enable them to build ships on the Clyde, if there is a threat of growing unemployment? Will the Treasury tax these companies to a degree which enables them to demonstrate that they cannot undertake new capital construction and then, through another Department, hand out taxpayers' money to enable them to carry on?
It is a crazy system, if that is the case. On the other hand, if there is unemployment in John Brown's shipyard, or Harland and Wolff's shipyard, in Belfast, and they are not in a position to take

on orders for ships at the current market price for taxation reasons—I am not arguing the merits of the taxation system—will they be able to get a grant under the Bill?
I am all in favour of the diversification of industry, but I am not in favour of the expansion of one industry at the neglect of another. Shipbuilding is a great industry and must not be neglected. For goodness' sake, do not let us take our eyes entirely off the value of shipbuilding to the United Kingdom. The United States is laying down a sister ship to its Blue Riband liner. West Germany is laying down a ship for the North Atlantic route, and so are Greece and France. Surely there is justification for giving assistance, if we want to, in this form to the shipbuilding and merchant shipping industries, to maintain our prestige and enable Britain to hold her own in the world in shipbuilding.
I have the figures for freights in the last twelve months. They make extraordinary reading. We have ships laid up all over the country. My hon. Friend the Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) said that a number are laid up in the River Fal.

Mr. Hayman: Thirty.

Mr. Bence: Thirty ships are laid up in the Fal. A tremendous quantity of British shipping is laid up. If there is cancellation of orders, will it be possible, under the Bill, for British shipbuilders to get grants to start rebuilding ships and to compete in the markets of the world? Will it be possible for merchant shipping companies to receive Treasury grants to keep the merchant ships flowing? Are we introducing a method of subsidising merchant shipping and shipbuilding? If there is a continuation of the fall in freight rates, and the cancellation of shipbuilding orders goes on at the rate that has been happening since January this year, in less than eighteen months the shipbuilding industry will be in a bad way. If the shipbuilding industry on the Clyde gets into a bad way, unemployment will be back to its prewar level.
This is a serious problem. The Bill has no more powers to deal with Development Areas than the Act of 1945. The only difference is that under the Bill financial assistance can be given to economic enterprises or enterprises that are not described


in the Schedules to the 1945 Act, but, frankly, I am very suspicious about that. It is doubtful whether we can assess whether a public enterprise will, over a reasonable period, guarantee employment to a given number of people. I doubt whether any non-industrial or even industrial activity can give assurances about the number of people to be employed over a given period.
Lastly, may I comment on the idea expressed by the Minister that the Bill will help industrial activity and established firms, or those who propose to go into industrial productivity in areas where there is high unemployment. I do not think that that is good enough. Something greater than that has to be done. Anyone who has been engaged in industry in the congested areas of the Midlands and the South knows—and this is true at every turn, because of the congestion on the roads and the railways—that every leap forward in productivity in the factories has been frustrated by clearance from the gates. On every side, the traffic jams on the roads from the factories in the Midlands and the South are hopeless. We must think in terms of dispersing and getting some industrial production out of this huge conglomeration in the South.
It is tragic to think that the population of Scotland is about one-third of the population of the conurbation around London, this great area of small industrial plants and commercial properties. I cannot see the Bill helping either in propping up the industries in the Development Areas and elsewhere or fulfilling something which must be done within the next twenty years: that is, a reallocation of some part of our industrial activity to spread the transport and delivery of products and to spread our population out of this area.
It is sickening to some of us who have been in industry in the Midlands to see our products piled up at the factories and in the yards. I have seen a factory working short-time because road transport cannot get the goods away from the factory gates. This was particularly the case with motor bodies. I saw it between 1945 and 1951, when, because of the tremendous crowding on the roads, motor bodies were stacked up and we had to stop the production lines until we could get some of them away. On the other hand, transport routes in Wales and

Scotland are uneconomic because there is not enough production capacity in those areas to sustain a good, fast freight service by road and by rail.
Therefore, the Bill is to me merely a scrap of paper. I cannot see that it will do anything. The most likely thing that it might do is to add to the values of fishing rights on fishing waters where there is no hotel, but where the Trust Houses or some other company might get together and get a grant from the Treasury to open a hotel by those waters and increase the value of the fishing rights. As far as I can see, the Bill is almost useless.

9.38 p.m.

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: I regret having to detain hon. and right hon. Members much longer, but I am conscious of having at least two sympathetic hearers in the chief actors in this debate tonight. I refer to the Minister of Labour and to the former Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), both of whom know the Western Isles constituency. Both of them have been there for different reasons at different times. Perhaps, for some of those reasons, I might expect less sympathy from the Minister of Labour, but for other more enduring reasons I am sure that I shall have a lot of natural sympathy in appealing to him tonight to make sure that whatever benefit can come from this Measure shall be directed as far as possible to solving the problems of that area. I should like to have from the Minister an assurance that there will be a direct application and impact upon the problems of the Western Isles as a result of the anticipated passing of this Measure.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), I have very real memories of the debates in this House in years before the war when in the Western Isles we had a gloomy record which few places in the country achieved—a record of very high, persistent unemployment and lack of prospects of new industries to relieve that unemployment.
One hon. Member from Wales has tonight mentioned a figure of 16 per cent. We also reached that level and, unfortunately, passed it in my constituency. As late as 1937 we suffered under an unemployment burden rising to 68 per cent. That by no means accounted for


all the people who were unemployed, for there were, in addition, those who were in the transitional stages, those on local relief and all the others who were not included within that figure.
I regret to say that even the figure of nearly 38 per cent. which the Minister of Labour has most recently published is not in itself a true figure showing the conditions in the Islands at present. A very large number of my constituents are not Class 1 insured persons at all, as the Minister well knows. Many of them—almost all members of the Transport and General Workers' Union—are weavers in the Harris tweed industry, producing a product known all over the world for its quality. In times of unemployment these many hundreds of men and women do not qualify for unemployment benefit at all.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Blyth, shortly after he became Minister of Labour, spent a week in the Islands with me. We went round and saw these men at work, and he also saw men of that industry who were unemployed, and he well knows what a catastrophe it can be in an area dependent almost entirely on a single manufacturing industry when suddenly a slump hits it and there is heavy unemployment without even recourse to unemployment insurance benefit.
That is a desperate situation for any section of our community to be in. I estimate that at this moment about 2,300 men and women in the Islands are unemployed, and a very large number of them, in addition to those who are registered unemployed, have no unemployment benefit of any kind but have to fall back on National Assistance. So far there is no prospect of relief through new industry coming in, and no prospect of these people coming under Class 1 insurance, without the introduction of new legislation.
Today the Minister mentioned a number of conditions which he thought must apply before aid could be given; and I should like him to clarify the situation. I want to know exactly what are the conditions which must be satisfied in my constituency in order to enable my constituents to take advantage of this Measure. Can he or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade say definitely that something will be done or can be done as a result of the Bill, some-

thing practical and effective to reduce unemployment and to bring within insurable unemployment at least some of those who are now unemployed? Can we be given any sort of assurance that we shall have some benefit from the Measure? I think that is what every hon. Member wants to know, because there is a great deal of uncertainty.
A lot could come from the Bill with the fulfilment of certain conditions, but, equally, awfully little could come of the Bill. After all, the part of the Distribution of Industry Act which is virtually being extended here is the part which in the past has been least effective in providing employment and in contributing to our prosperity. The part of the 1945 Act which has been most effective is that part which provided the advance building of factories and all the rest of it; though in some areas unemployment is growing even where the main part of the old Act has in the past been effective. I do not base very much expectation upon the mere extension of the less effective part of the Distribution of Industry Act. I do not really like to place too much hope upon it; but I am certainly anxious to hear anything the Minister has to say which will sweep away my pessimism on that point, and I hope he will be able to give us some practical assurance.
I know that we have the good will of the Minister of Labour, and, for that matter, of everybody in the House. I do not think there is any hon. Member—apart from an occasional archaic oddity on the front bench opposite; below the gangway; apart from the very odd person in this House, odd in every sense—who does not want to see the reduction of unemployment to the lowest possible figure, if only to solve a human problem, quite apart from all the other considerations.
We have assurances of good will from the Minister; but is that really enough? We have had any amount of expressions of good will. As long ago as 1936 a number of my hon. Friends and myself, with the support of some hon. Members on the other side, convinced the House that there existed economic and social distress in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland; and unanimously the House accepted that urgent measures must be taken to mitigate their distress, that measures must be taken to provide insurable employment and raise the standard


of living. Any amount of goodwill was expressed from all sides of the House. I have known many another such occasion.
Nevertheless, through all these years since I first represented the area in 1935, there has been a high level of unemployment there and little of lasting effect to reduce it. Today unemployment has suddenly leapt up again from a high enough figure in 1956 to almost double what it was then. With a constituency figure of from 35–38 per cent. of unemployment, even at this time of night I should feel extremely guilty if I did not speak out and ask the Minister to give us some clear, practical evidence that the Bill will apply in that area in a way which will substantially reduce the unemployment and give insurable employment in decent conditions of work to the men and women there.
It is an area where, because of poverty and neglect, there has been no accumulation of capital through the years. It is an area which is not able to finance its own production. It is an area which is lacking in the basic services such as the Government alone can provide. Private enterprise, if it wants to flourish there, must take some initiative. Private enterprise must, however, have these basic services, and can certainly do nothing until the Government, in the first place, ensure that the basic services exist and then provide aid by way of capital, as well as the conditions in which employment and prosperity can be developed.
Even in the good will that the Minister has expressed, he has alarmed us. On Friday last and in the Budget there were statements about resettlement, about helping people to come out of the areas of unemployment and to go off to other areas in greater comfort, with a little more help to emigrate, and so on. But what does one do in an area which suffers from high and persistent unemployment and a lack of prospect of new industry and, at the same time, the heaviest drift of depopulation of young people of any part of the country? Do the Government want the young people to go away? Does it not want the industry to go to them to stem the local depopulation? I put that to the President of the Board of Trade as well as to the Minister of Labour. One cannot continue to take

young people out of that area and also hope to revitalise it, whatever new industries are provided. New industries need the essential labour on the spot of the young people. The Government and the Minister are responsible for providing the answer.
There we have these factors: lack of local accumulated capital, heavy and persistent unemployment, and heavy depopulation, with an ever-ageing population. What is the answer to that problem? Surely in the several years they have been in office Ministers have had a chance to do something about the problem? I ask whether the Bill will at least mitigate the serious conditions, the crisis conditions in that area. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us examples of how it will help with practical effect? That is what we want to know. We know we have his and everybody's else's good will; but I am afraid that is not quite enough for us when we still have over 30 per cent.—it is nearer 40 per cent.—of unemployment in an area where the prospect is pretty grim indeed unless Ministers face up seriously to their responsibility for this very serious problem.
It is small wonder that in the Isles there is a cynical frustration felt now. We have had so many offers of good will, so many promises through the years by Governments, that, with the rising prosperity and standards of the country as a whole, some of it must come to us. The opinion has rightly been expressed in speeches on both sides of the House tonight that we must have a healthy economy, and prosperity throughout the country if the special areas are fully to feel the impact of prosperity and benefit. There has been full employment in the country, but we have still had 20 per cent. unemployment in the Isles. Now that our unemployment rate is nearer 40 per cent. than 30 per cent. there is a still deeper sense of frustration and despair. As the promised prosperity eludes them, there grows a feeling that there is discrimination against them; and certainly a sense of almost studied, callous neglect. I hope that the Minister will put an end to that sense of unfairness and discrimination tonight.

9.50 p.m.

Mr. E Fernyhough: I am sorry to delay the House, but I promise to be brief. As an hon. Friend of mine


has said, when we talk in terms of a small percentage of unemployment it is a question of the victims who are suffering from that disability. I am sure that if those of us who tend to speak in percentages had to live with those victims, we should understand how anxiously they grasp at any thread which they feel will give them hope of being able once more to take their places in society.
I represent a constituency where unemployment almost murdered the town. The scars are still there and they will be there for many a day. As a result of the 1945 Act things have undoubtedly been better since the war than they were in the inter-war years, but unemployment is again raising its head in my constituency. The latest figures, men and women together, show that there are over 1,000 unemployed, but there are projects which could go ahead under the Bill provided that it is administered with enthusiasm, imagination and generosity. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade to tell me how far two projects which have been contemplated for some time in my constituency, but which are being held in abeyance, are likely to benefit from the Bill when it becomes law.
I refer to two new dry docks. Everybody knows that the size of ships and tankers is growing year by year, and many of those going in for tanker construction now think in terms of 60,000, 75,000 and even up to 100,000 tons. This increase is due to technical improvements and also to the fact that as a result of Suez it was found that by constructing tankers of 100,000 tons it would be as economical to bring the oil round the Cape as in smaller tankers through the Suez Canal. At the moment, even though tankers of 75,000 or 100,000 tons are constructed, we have not the necessary dry dock facilities. Two such dry docks have been planned in my division, but those who are going to undertake their construction find, because of the credit squeeze and the dear money policy, that they cannot contemplate going ahead with them at this time.
In his Budget speech, the Chancellor said this was the type of project which it might be possible to help under this Bill. All I want the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us is that the two projects I have mentioned will comply with such regulations as may be laid down, and

thus qualify for the assistance which would allow a start to be made. I think the Minister and everyone else in the country appreciates how desirable it is to have these facilities which are lacking at present. If they cannot be provided because of the Government's policy in another direction, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be able to give me a satisfactory answer which will enable the projects to go ahead with such help as the Bill can give them.
I welcome the Bill. I hope it will do all that its sponsors pretend it will. If it can give to the previously Distressed Areas the same aid and the same measure of economic salvation as did the 1945 Act, undoubtedly it will turn out to be one of the best Bills which this unpopular Government have introduced.

9.54 p.m.

Mr. Alfred Robens: I suppose that it must be quite twenty years since this House has spent so long discussing unemployment with such apprehension in the speeches of hon. Members. That is a very significant fact. It shows that while the incidence of unemployment is not high, in areas which were known as special areas before the war unemployment is raising its ugly head to a height which is making everybody in those areas take due notice of it, and is concerning them very much indeed.
Hon. Members on all sides of the House have expressed their alarm and their fears. The very fact that the Government have had to introduce the Bill is an indication of the failure of their economic policy—[HON. MEMBERS:
"Oh."]—it must be the failure of the economic policy of the Government, because if production had gone on apace and had continued to increase there would have been no need for the Bill.
The Bill is designed to meet special circumstances. It is not designed to meet the unemployment problem of the country as a whole. The Minister of Labour was perfectly right when he said that the overall unemployment figure of 2 per cent. was not something which caused anybody considerable alarm, but that it was the 10 per cent. in Northern Ireland and the high percentage in the Western Isles, to which my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan) referred, and in other parts of the United Kingdom which caused alarm.
The Bill would not have been necessary if production had been running at a higher pace than it is at present, because the circumstances, such as those described by my hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley) would not have arisen. My hon. Friend referred to advance factories built in his constituency which had been, or were about to be, vacated because they happened to be branch factories of companies with their main factories elsewhere, and who, because of a reduction in trade, were closing the branch factories, the advance factories, first. One can well understand that an industrialist will certainly not restrict production at the main factory, if he can avoid it, but will close down the branch. That is his view of the economics of the situation, but it is an indication that the Government have failed to maintain a rise in production, so far as that is within their power, and these are the consequences of that failure.
If hon. Members want further proof, they have only to read the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who indicated only a few days ago that we must expect a further but moderate rise in unemployment. It is because unemployment in this country is likely to start hardly in the heavily populated and employed areas but in those areas which were difficult areas before the war, and which have defied successive Governments to produce a period of over-full employment in any one of them, that this debate is being held, because that is why the Government have introduced the Bill.
Unemployment in those areas for which the Bill is designed will not be cured until the Government decide to have an expansion of industry, the keys of which they hold in their hands. When they decide to have an expansion, very little will be required to be done under the Bill, because industry will automatically do the task for them.
Nevertheless, we welcome the Bill because it is a genuine attempt to try as far as possible to mitigate the effects of the policy which the Government have been carrying out. The powers which the Bill, as it stands, gives are of no value unless backed by efficient machinery and efficient administration.
I was struck by the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire,

North (Miss Herbison), who pointed out that, although her constituency was within a Development Area, unemployment in her constituency was still running at a rate very much higher than the general average. She made the valid point that even under the Distribution of Industry Act the Government had failed in these last years to provide in her constituency the full employment which is the intention of most hon. Members.
Therefore, it is the effectiveness behind the Bill and behind the main Act which will help the situation, although it will not do so until the Government themselves change their whole economic policy. I have no doubt, and we will discuss this at greater length when we come to discuss the Finance Bill, that we shall not be able to meet the problem of unemployment, which has been put so graphically from all sides today, until the Government change their economic policy.
I asked the right hon. Gentleman why Northern Ireland had been excluded, but I gathered from the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mrs. McLaughlin) that she felt that it was because Northern Ireland had already got all the machinery it needed to deal with the problem. Nevertheless, it is clear that if the machinery is available there is something wrong somewhere when successive Governments have not found it possible to bring unemployment in Northern Ireland down to reasonable proportions.

Mrs. McLaughlin: I was trying to make it clear in my speech that in Northern Ireland we already have the powers which the Bill will give when it becomes law. I also pointed out that in special areas the Bill might not be an answer to everything, as the powers contained in it had not been a complete answer in Northern Ireland. We are looking for further measures.

Mr. Robens: That is what I gathered from the hon. Lady's speech originally. That is why I said that she emphasised what I am now saying, namely, that only energetic administrative action behind the Bill will solve the problem.
In the city which the hon. Lady, with other hon. Members represents, administrative action is necessary in the case of the problem now affecting Short and Harlands, in relation to the number of


aircraft workers who will be displaced in the next few weeks. If the present contract for Canberras were allowed to tail off much more slowly, and if the order for the freighter could be put in much more quickly, the great unemployment which is obviously coming could be relieved.
That is a purely administrative matter. I doubt whether I know all the reasons why that simple administrative action has not been taken, but it will have nothing to do with the powers which Northern Ireland already possesses, or with the Bill that we are now discussing. I am saying—and the hon. Lady has confirmed my view—that there must be keen, energetic administrative action if the principal Act and this Measure are to be effective.

Mr. Alan McKibbin: I and my Ulster colleagues would very much welcome any project which would relieve the immediate problem of redundancy in Short and Harlands, and we should be very glad to get further orders for Canberras. But I feel that it is more important to ensure a lasting and progressive industry. If an early decision could be taken about Service requirements for freighter aeroplanes it would help, as Short and Harlands have a design for such an aircraft which would meet both civil and military requirements.

Mr. Robens: I appreciate that short interjection by the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. McKibbin). I agree that every effort should be made to drag down the very high figure of over 10 per cent. unemployment in Northern Ireland. Hon. Members on this side of the House are ready to help, as they have always been, although they have very little chance of representing a Northern Ireland constituency. Nevertheless, we are always ready to help, because unemployment should not be left in patches for fear that it will spread and we shall all suffer. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us something about the administrative actions which the Government propose to take in implementation of the Bill.
I am sorry that the Bill does not carry out the provisions of Section 1 of the principal Act. I should have thought that

it would have been a useful provision to be able to build advance factories, because it has been found throughout the years that the provision of such factories makes it far easier to get firms to move into these areas. I should have thought that the Bill might have been improved if the provisions of Section 1 of the principal Act had been included in it.
I also think that the right hon. Gentleman and the Parliamentary Secretary will have to pay a good deal of detailed attention to industrial development certificates, because if they are awarded indiscriminately their virtue will be destroyed. Equally it seems to me that the extensions which are now being granted—indeed, I presume that no permission except building permission is necessary—to factories in areas which are already well catered for is one of the ways in which the areas about which we are concerned will be starved of employment possibilities. Something must be done about this aspect because it is the most natural thing in the world for any manufacturer, if he wants to increase his capacity, to enlarge the existing buildings in which he already carries out his business. It is not easy, because many difficulties arise from his point of view, to persuade him to go into a factory in an area where employment is required rather than to extend his existing factory.
One has to face the fact that this is a great social problem. It has been mentioned already in the debate, but it must be said again. It is socially wrong that one should drag people from different parts of the country to places which are already over-populated, where housing facilities are not available, leaving in their wake whole areas—to describe them as derelict might be an exaggeration—where all the facilities for a large population are not being used to the full. It is a misuse of our national assets and it is very undesirable socially.
I admit that the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour has frequently considered the transfer of workers, and from time to time has improved and facilitated the arrangements for the transfer of workers. But here again I would say that, whilst it is right that we should facilitate the transfer of workers if they are to go to some other town for their employment, it is not a particularly


good method of dealing with the employment situation generally. Again, it is not socially desirable if a man has to leave his wife and family while he lives in lodgings and probably gets home only occasionally. It is better that we should seek to employ people in the places where they live. We must have a flexible system to enable this to be done.
As the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) said, the changes in production in the last twenty years have been phenomenal. Of course, we must be ready to change the sort of things we make and the way in which we make them, but it is important that we should carry these changes, new techniques and new factories into those areas which have been dependent upon a single industry for the whole of their existence. This has been the worst feature of British industrial life during this century. It was graphically described by my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Mr. Burke). As my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley said, within the last few months six or eight mills have closed down completely. Two were taken over, probably for warehousing accommodation and, therefore, do not account for the employment of much labour. Anyone who has been to those Lancashire towns knows how well those mills are built. Yet they are empty and useless and people are moving away.
It seems so crazy to have an industrial system whereby when an industry, because of events outside its control, changes from the manufacture of one product to the manufacture of another, a town or a group of towns should suffer these social consequences and this high unemployment. Therefore, we must make every effort to take work to the people. No matter how inconvenient it may be to industrialists, we should not permit anything to prevent work being taken to the people. This cannot be done by Act of Parliament. I do not believe it is possible to legislate for this situation, but it can be done administratively, and it can be done by pressure being brought to bear by Government Departments upon industrialists when they are discussing plans for extensions or for new buildings.
The right hon. Gentleman will surely have to give consideration to what is

happening as the result of the change in the defence programme, such as the closing down of Royal Ordnance Factories. Empty capacity will also become available in the naval dockyards. I hope that we shall not leave it to lie idly by. Whilst it may not be, and probably is not, situated in Development Areas and probably would not be covered by the Bill, there is still an obligation on the Government, particularly as they were owners of the capacity and employers of the people, to make sure that these things are not left derelict and that the Government are not responsible for the social consequences of unemployment brought about by a complete change in the kind of work on which people have existed for many years. A very good example is Woolwich Arsenal. When one considers the position twenty years ago and now, the comparison could hardly have been imagined by people who worked in that place in those days.
We welcome the Bill because it will enable the Administration to do things for areas which are suffering high unemployment and which those areas could not get unless they were scheduled as Development Areas. I think we are all agreed that we do not want the whole United Kingdom to become a scheduled area. It is much better to pick out these areas and to utilise the new authority which the Bill will give.
In welcoming the Bill, I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will say something about dry docks. This point has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Fernyhough). It is also a matter which affects other hon. Members—

Dame Irene Ward: And me.

Mr. Robens: —and the hon. Lady the Member for Belfast, West, who I know has a great interest in the dry docks there. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will tell us about dry docks. The Tyneside and elsewhere, where new dock facilities are required, will expect to have an indication tonight of what the Bill will give them in relation to the new dry docks which are contemplated.
While I say that the Bill is welcome for what it does, in the position in which we find ourselves, and while we give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading, I stress,


on behalf of hon. Members on this side of the House, that we do not regard it as an alternative to a full-employment policy.

10.14 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): We have had a very broad debate. The Bill has been generally welcomed, although with reservations, on both sides of the House. There are those who think that it goes too far and those who think that it does not go far enough.
We make no attempt to claim that the Bill will be a universal panacea for unemployment wherever it may be seen to occur. On the other hand, it is not a piece of mere window-dressing, as was suggested by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. Bence).
It is inevitable in a debate of this character that there should be a general review by some hon. Members of policy in Development Areas as a whole. I hope that the House will agree that I should not try to reply to the broader aspects of the matter. The Bill, while it embraces Development Areas to a limited extent, is primarily concerned with giving aid to localities outside such areas. I feel that it would be a pity to spend my time in discussing Development Area policy generally when there are points which I wish to make and which relate more closely to the Bill.

Mr. S. Silverman: Before the Parliamentary Secretary goes on, if he is not to say anything more about Development Area policy, will he at least give the assurance for which my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) asked in his opening speech for the Opposition, that nothing done under the Bill will take away what otherwise would be done by the Government under statutory obligations in the Development Areas?

Mr. Erroll: I think I can give that assurance straight away. There was no intention of taking away from the Development Areas by a subtraction process and giving to other areas.
In a debate of this sort it is inevitable that many hon. Members should concentrate on unemployment and problems of unemployment. The impression might go

out from the House that Britain was a depressed country with massive unemployment. The right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), in his winding-up speech for the Opposition, referred to the length of the debate and its attention to unemployment, but I would remind the House that the economy as a whole is strong and buoyant and that, generally, there is full employment throughout the country—

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: Factories are closing.

Mr. Erroll: Plenty of new factories are opening.

Mr. Popplewell: We should be extremely interested to hear where they are, particularly in the Development Areas and those areas which have unemployment creeping up to 5 per cent., 6 per cent., and even 10 per cent. Will the hon. Gentleman tell us where those factories are?

Mr. Erroll: I would ask the hon. Member to look at the Answer I gave recently to a Question about the number of industrial development certificates which have been granted. That shows in general terms the sort of new building which is either taking place, or is about to take place. It is still on a very substantial scale.
The debate today has provided a number of back benchers with opportunities for making points with special reference to their constituencies. I do not think anyone could claim that today the Front Bench, on either side of the House, has hogged the debate. Rather more than 20 speeches have been made by back benchers and many interesting points were made. If I were to devote only one minute to each speech, that would take twenty minutes, so I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I am not able to do full justice to the points they have made. I will look into them most carefully after the debate and see that they are taken care of so far as possible.
In opening the debate, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour emphasised that the Bill extends existing powers for lending money to firms in Development Areas, to those setting up in needy places and elsewhere, always provided that the purpose for which the money is required will contribute to the reduc-


tion of a high and persistent rate of unemployment. The Bill is deliberately a flexible one and we have made no attempt to define in numerical terms the localities which will qualify, nor is there a limit to the type of business which will receive a loan. This Bill, however, will not suddenly make available a fine new factory for any locality with industrial ambitions and only a handful of unemployed. The tests are fairly stringent, because the Bill is to deal with unemployment which is at a high rate and is likely to persist.
The purpose of the Bill is to help those places where both conditions exist, but no place which satisfies them will be excluded from our considerations. That particularly applies to that part of Great Britain which is represented by the hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Malcolm MacMillan). If ever there was a locality which qualifies for consideration under this Bill, it is his constituency. Neither would the Bill be a source of finance just for anyone who would like to embark on a commercial venture with Government capital. Not only will we have to be satisfied that the project will contribute to a reduction of unemployment, but under Section 4 of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, which the Bill amends, the Treasury will require to be convinced on two grounds: first, that the project will ultimately be able to carry on without further assistance; and, secondly, that the capital cannot be obtained elsewhere on the requisite terms.
With the Bill, which I hope the House will approve, the Government will be able to give practical help where it is most needed. My noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) suggested that the Bill might be used to bring the economy up to boiling point. There is no question of doing anything of the sort. We intend to use the Bill to give practical help where it is needed, and no more.

Mr. Hugh Dalton: Freezing point?

Mr. Erroll: I am far too enthusiastic to be interested in freezing point.
Conditions vary so much in different localities and the needs of individual projects vary so completely from one another that it would be undesirable, in our view,

either to define conditions in figures or to limit the scope of the Bill by listing exclusions. On the other hand, if hon. Members wish to make particular additions to the Bill, we shall be glad to consider any suggested Amendment and to see that it is studied as fully as possible.
I should like to explain briefly to the House how we intend to implement the Bill. Amongst many hon. Members, the hon. Member for Paddington, North (Mr. Parkin) particularly hoped that I would spare a few minutes to explain how we intend to implement the Bill.
I will begin by emphasising that both my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade and myself intend to take a special interest in seeing that these powers are vigorously and sensibly used.

Mr. Dalton: And visit the areas.

Mr. Erroll: Where time permits we shall undoubtedly visit the areas, but to begin with, at any rate, it is more important to be at headquarters, to ensure that the organisation develops as smoothly as it ought. We shall, of course, keep in touch with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Welsh Affairs.
The first and most important matter to be considered is the provision of finance. Loans or grants under the Bill would be made from the Treasury Vote. The present D.A.T.A.C. Vote, which is Class VI, Vote 5, provides £100,000 only for loans for the financial year 1958–59. It is limited by its wording to industrial undertakings in Development Areas. The Treasury will need to present a Supplementary Estimate to obtain additional funds. They may either widen the ambit of the present Vote to cover transactions authorised by the Bill, or ask for a new and separate Vote. These matters are for the Treasury to determine and are still under consideration.
The Explanatory and Financial Memorandum to the Bill states that it is not possible to form an estimate of the increase in expenditure. I am sure that hon. Members will appreciate that it is much too early to be able to make an estimate. We cannot yet tell how many serious applications we are likely to receive. Parliament—and here I


think I am reassuring my noble Friend the Member for Dorset, South—will have the usual opportunities of scrutinising both the initial Supplementary Estimate and the annual vote for future years. Following the ordinary practice we should not propose to publish details of individual loans made, although aggregates and totals will be made available to hon. Members as required.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) asked about total expenditure since 1945 because he thought that this would provide a guide to the sums of money, possibly the maxima, which the House may be asked to approve. This may help to reassure my noble Friend. Expenditure under the Act since 1945 on factory building amounts to £70 million, giving employment to about 190,000 people over the twelve years.

Mr. Nabarro: That is the figure which I gave.

Mr. Erroll: Loans under D.A.T.A.C. total about £6·9 million. These figures represent expenditure incurred both by the former Socialist Government and by the present Government, and I think that it is within reasonable bounds.

Mr. Jay: Will the hon. Gentleman give figures relating to D.A.T.A.C. to show the figures for grants, if any, so that we may compare them?

Mr. Erroll: Yes. I understand that the grants are very small, if not nil, but I should be glad to have the opportunity of getting the exact figures for hon. Gentlemen opposite if they wish.
The procedure under the Act will be for the Treasury to receive applications for assistance, whether by loans or grants, and to refer them to the Advisory Committee, which, after considering all the financial circumstances of the applicants, will recommend to the Treasury what assistance shall be given. Perhaps I may remind hon. Members that the Statute requires that the loan or grant may be made by the Treasury, to quote from the terms of the Act,
in accordance with the recommendation of the advisory Committee appointed by them".
Thus, while the Treasury is not compelled to make a loan, if it does decide to make

a loan it must be in accordance with the recommendations of the D.A.T.A.C. Committee. This scrutiny of applications by an independent body constitutes a very important safeguard in the use of the powers now being sought.
One or two hon. Gentlemen, including, I think, one of my hon. Friends, mentioned the possibility of the Committee being packed, but I think that is hardly likely to be a serious matter. I do not think it is likely, because the Labour Party has itself had six years' experience of operating this legislation and has made many of the appointments to D.A.T.A.C. In my view, the independence of these gentlemen is the best guarantee of their integrity. It is, indeed, a safeguard for whatever Government is in power that it has to accept the recommendation of this independent Committee.

Mr. A. Woodburn: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not trying to persuade the House that there was so little money spent in order to reassure certain of his hon. Friends that the Bill will be useless. I hope that it will be used as widely and as well as possible.

Mr. Erroll: My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour made reference to the terms on which and the way in which money would be made available, and if the right hon. Gentleman looks up what he said I think he will be reassured on this point.
As it is already in being, the Advisory Committee will be able to take up applications as soon as the Bill becomes law. Statutory conditions preclude giving assistance to companies which could reasonably expect to raise elsewhere the finance they require. In fact, to quote from the 1945 Act,
the person carrying it on or proposing to carry it on cannot for the time being, and without assistance under this section, obtain capital required for the purposes of the undertaking on the requisite terms.
The Capital Issues Committee and the banks know that it is consistent with Government policy that finance should be made available to the promoters of sound development for the purposes mentioned in the Bill, and later, when negotiating with applicants, D.A.T.A.C. will put those applicants on inquiry to ensure that they have explored the


ordinary sources of finance before applying for assistance under these provisions.
Having said that, I should like to make the point that prosperous firms will not necessarily be excluded if they can satisfy the Treasury in this respect. On the other hand, the terms on which assistance may be given are not subject to any statutory restriction, and it will be the policy of the Treasury not to limit the discretion of the Committee on the form of assistance, the rate of interest payable or the terms of repayment which it should recommend. The Treasury has general powers which it has already used to prescribe favourable interest rates in special circumstances.

Mr. S. Silverman: Is the Treasury represented on the Advisory Committee?

Mr. Erroll: No, it is an independent Committee, but its secretary is provided from the Treasury.
It is not the intention, however, to compete unfairly with private sources of capital finance or with the banks as suppliers of working capital, but every application will be considered on its individual merits. Different companies have different needs, and the policy will be applied as flexibly as possible in order to fulfil the purpose of the Act.
A number of hon. Gentlemen referred to non-industrial activities, since the Bill does not confine the powers to industrial undertakings. I should like to emphasise this important extension of the powers which we hope will be made available both inside the existing Development Areas and outside to localities where there is a high and persistent rate of unemployment. The Bill widens the scope of the 1945 Act to include non-industrial undertakings. This will enable other providers of employment to receive financial assistance. There is a number of possible types of business, such as insurance companies, mail order businesses, hire-purchase companies, or research establishments which might possibly qualify.
As regards assistance to hotels and holiday camps, perhaps I might briefly reply to the points put by the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East. This, too, is possible, although, of course, the possibly seasonal nature of the employment

that such projects would give would have to be taken into account in considering any such applications.

Mr. J. T. Price: Do I take it that included in this range of companies or undertakings which will qualify for a preferential rate of interest on loans are to be hire-purchase companies? Would that not create a very wide gap for abuses of all kinds, because of the high rates of interest charged by hire-purchase companies? Their record is not particularly clean in certain respects.

Mr. Erroll: No, I had not in mind financing hire-purchase companies as such, but rather financing the provision of premises where they might carry on, say, the collection of hire-purchase instalments in an area which could benefit from their being placed in, say, Cornwall rather than the City of London. But, there again, I do not think that hon. Members need have any anxieties on the point, since any such application would, of course, have to be subject to the same scrutiny by the Advisory Committee, which would require to be satisfied that the money would be properly spent for the purposes for which it was asked.
Turning to dry docks, which were referred to—

Mr. Malcolm MacMillan: An important matter was raised earlier and a reply was promised. The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) asked a very pertinent question, having regard to the problem in the Highlands and Islands, that is, whether agencies like the Herring Industry Board or the Crofters' Commission would be empowered to promote undertakings in the areas of their responsibility. Could we have an answer now?

Mr. Erroll: I am trying to do justice to as many of the points raised as possible, and I have that one on my next page of notes, as a matter of fact.

Dry docks—

Mr. Dalton: Will these provisions—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is not an unimportant matter in places where men are unemployed. Perhaps I may be allowed to put the question. Will this also cover—I hope that the answer is "Yes"—hotels in places where American tourists might be brought in?

Mr. Erroll: It is quite a treat to see a flash of the old temper we saw in earlier times, when we used to enjoy harrying the right hon. Gentleman when he was standing at this Box.
The answer about hotels is quite simple. The test is unemployment. Would the hotel project relieve unemployment at a high rate and of a persistent nature? It would not be possible to use the Bill to finance hotels which would simply be for the object of assisting the tourist trade. The Park Lane hotel project, for example, would obviously be ruled right out of order.
Getting back to dry docks, which, I am sure, interest at least two hon. Members who spoke, perhaps I may deal first with what was said by the hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. C. Hughes). I would remind the hon. Gentleman that my noble Friend the Minister of State for Welsh Affairs visited the Isle of Anglesey only a few days ago so that he might acquaint himself at first hand with some of the problems there.
In our view, dry docks would qualify. They qualify already if they are to be erected inside Development Areas, but the Bill would make it possible for money to be provided for a dry dock in a locality outside a Development Area, subject again to the standard qualification, if it would contribute to the reduction of a high and persistent rate of unemployment.
I should like to go further on this theme because under this Bill assistance would be given to foreign firms who wished to set up business in this country if their applications can meet this—

Mr. Robens: Dry docks?

Mr. Erroll: I am off dry docks.

Mr. Robens: I should like to press this matter a little before the hon. Gentleman leaves dry docks. Will he say a little more about them? Perhaps I may put the matter by way of an example just for illustration. Messrs. Harland and Wolff's dry dock project will cost £4 million to £5 million, and my understanding is that Harland and Wolff, because of other commitments, are not in a position to put anything towards the dry dock but would regard a rental as being a way by which they could pay. Would the Treasury

finance this dry dock project and rent it to Harland and Wolff?

Mr. Erroll: Of course, it is quite clear. I should have thought, to the right hon. Member by now that this Bill does not include Northern Ireland.

Mr. Robens: I said that that was by way of illustration.

Mr. Erroll: I am sorry I did not take that point. In this case, it is very difficult to say, in advance, exactly what sort of case would qualify. One has to remember that the object is to alleviate a high and persistent rate of unemployment, and then the other test is the test by the Advisory Committee which looks at the financial aspect of the matter. As the right hon. Gentleman referred to a case by way of illustration only, I can give him only a general reply, also by way of illustration. These are very practical matters to which we intend to come just as soon as the Bill is an Act. We intend to press on vigorously, and then D.A.T.A.C., in existence and ready to examine applications—

Mr. Edward Short: Mr. Edward Short (Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Central) rose—

Mr. Erroll: I must go on. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is no time limit."] Yes, but I must get on. I have another Bill to speak to, as well.

Mr. Short: Mr. Short rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Order. If the Minister does not give way, hon. Members must resume their seats.

Mr. Short: This is a matter of considerable importance to Tyneside. There are two projects, one for a dry dock at Hepburn, and the other for a mercantile dry dock at Jarrow. The Chancellor referred to dry docks in his Budget speech. Will the Minister tell us whether the Treasury will give us some type of assistance, or whether there will be assistance under this Bill? It is quite ambiguous. There are these two schemes already, but the firms do not know what financial assistance they will get. Will the hon. Gentleman be a little more specific?

Mr. Erroll: I will not be more specific tonight.

Dame Irene Ward: Oh, yes, my hon. Friend really ought to be. The question has been specifically put by several hon. Members both on this side of the House


and on the other side of the House, and I really do think that it is up to the Minister to have a proper answer available for us.

Mr. Erroll: I thought that I had given quite a good answer in general terms—

Dame Irene Ward: No. My hon. Friend has not.

Mr. Erroll: —to the House.

Mr. Short: On a point of order. The hon. Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) put this point and asked a specific question many hours ago. Surely we are entitled, as a matter of courtesy, to a reply from the Minister?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I do not know about the matter of courtesy. It is certainly not a point of order.

Mr. Erroll: I have answered by way of illustration.

Mr. Jay: It was just to illustrate the matter in the interests of the Minister. Is it not quite clear that what he has to say is that this dry dock on Tyneside would come within the scope of the Bill?

Mr. Erroll: Yes, in general terms it certainly would, as I have already said much earlier. I can answer only in general terms, because the success of an application depends on the view taken of it by the Advisory Committee. It has to be studied by the Committee.
I referred to foreign firms and I point out that, equally, local firms able to expand and give greater employment can apply for finance. The widening of powers to permit loans or grants to be made to undertakings by way of trade or business, whether or not industrial, applies inside as well as outside Development Areas. In this respect, the Bill increases the scope for giving help to relieve unemployment in Development Areas.
I want to refer to the point made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland about the Crofters' Commission and similar bodies and whether they would qualify. The position is that the Crofter's Commission—to take that as an example, although I am here including other similar bodies—would have to carry on or propose to carry on an undertaking by way of trade or business before it was eligible for help and assistance under the Bill. It is unlikely that the Crofters' Commission would carry on such an undertaking and, of course, the

Commission, like everybody else, would have to show that it could not obtain the finance on requisite terms from any other source, including, of course, other Government sources.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hastings (Mr. Cooper-Key) referred to seaside resorts. The short answer to his question is that, again, if the appropriate conditions are met, they are eligible. The unemployment problem in those cases is usually seasonal, especially for women, but where there is a substantial number of men and women unemployed for most of the year, applications from suitable small industries could be entertained. The difficulty would be to avoid encouraging industries which might expand and threaten, either by absorbing labour or by spoiling amenity, the continuance of the tourist traffic on which the area mainly depended. However, I must remind hon. Members that the unemployment in the seaside area would have to be at a high rate and be persistent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Heywood and Royton (Mr. Leavey) asked how we proposed to define "locality". The basis for localities, as mentioned in the Bill, will be employment exchange areas or groups of areas. We will thus have a complete mosaic covering the whole of the country, with no gaps.
Views on what is a reasonable distance of travel to work vary widely from locality to locality and it is judged in my right hon. Friend's Department according to local custom and facilities available. Obviously, it would not be the practice to give assistance to an area with a high rate of unemployment if the neighbouring area, with good transport facilities, was doing extremely well. Here, we must decide each case on its merits. For example, in the remote parts of Wales and Scotland, there may be no practice of travelling to work, but in urban areas journeys of up to ten miles may be commonplace.
Several hon. Members referred to the sanction which the Board of Trade possesses in refusing to grant industrial development certificates. This matter was mentioned by the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison), the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Mr. Hayman) and the hon. Member for Sowerby (Mr. Houghton) and


several others. This is a control which we exercise as vigorously as circumstances permit.
My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade referred to his use of this power in his winding-up speech in the House on 24th February of this year. We have to strike a balance between permitting development where a firm wishes it to take place and using our powers of persuasion to secure that a firm will go to an area which we would like, bearing in mind all the time that if we are over-aggressive in this matter the firm may decide not to develop at all and just stay put where it is.
As part of this policy we are determined to prevent industry from the North of England from coming down into London and the South-East corner of England. Virtually no new firms have been allowed to set up in London and South-East England. Extensions certainly are permitted, and very often for good reasons. An extension very often enables a firm to reorganise its layout and increase its output without employing any more staff. I am not talking idly from one or two examples; I was so concerned about this matter when I came to the Board of Trade that I asked for a special investigation to be made of a large group of I.D.C.s granted over a three-month period two or three years previously, so that we could look at the subsequent history and see whether the firm had really developed as it had expected, and if the reasons given on its application—which at the time seemed to merit granting the I.D.C.—had been borne out by subsequent events.

Mr. Popplewell: The hon. Gentleman has raised a very important point, which affects a factory in my constituency. Aveling-Barfords has developed in Newcastle, but it has one factory in Grantham. It is reducing—not entirely closing—the factory in Newcastle, and going back south. That seems to belie what the Minister is saying. Will he examine this matter, because there is a suspicion that instead of the Ministry being helpful and enabling Aveling-Barfords to keep its factory in Newcastle, it lacks the cooperation it is entitled to?

Mr. Erroll: I will look into that matter and write to the hon. Member, but he must realise that this sanction is limited

to new construction, and it may be that the firm in question has existing premises to move into. There is no control over such movements.
The great advantage of the power which we have is that its existence is generally known and nowadays firms come to us or our regional controllers at an early stage in a proposed development. They normally have informal discussions with us, which enables us to interest the firm in moving to a locality which we would prefer to see it go to. We operate this procedure as consistently as possible, and the result of my investigation was that in almost every case the application and the grant of the certificate were fully justified in the light of the subsequent history of the firm which had been permitted to expand in the London area.
I have tried to cover as many as possible of the points which have been raised. I realise that there must be a number left unanswered in a wide-ranging debate such as this, but I hope that the Bill can now be given a Second Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

DISTRIBUTION OF INDUSTRY (INDUSTRIAL FINANCE) [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to enable the Treasury to give assistance under section four of the Distribution of Industry Act, 1945, for reducing unemployment in localities suffering from a high rate of unemployment, it is expedient to authorise any such increase in the sums which, under section eleven of the said Act of 1945, are authorised to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament or required to be paid into the Exchequer as may be attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session enabling assistance to be given under the said section four for the purpose aforesaid.—[Mr. Erroll.]

Resolution to be reported.

Resolution to be received Tomorrow.

DEFENCE CONTRACTS BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

10.50 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade (Mr. F. J. Erroll): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
Under the Bill the Government give up certain emergency powers, first, in respect of patented inventions and registered designs, and, secondly, in respect of technical information which is not the subject of or related to a patented invention or registered design. The Bill provides, however, for the Government to have certain more limited permanent powers.
If I may, I will try to outline briefly the two groups of powers. As to patented inventions and registered designs, Sections 46 to 49 of the Patents Act, 1949, and the First Schedule to the Registered Designs Act, 1949, not only enable the Government to use or authorise the use of the inventions and designs covered by the Acts for "services of the Crown", but also enable the Government to use them, or to authorise their use, for a wide variety of other purposes during a period of emergency.
The Bill revokes the Order under which the emergency has been continued, so that such inventions and designs can only be used by the Government under the permanent powers in the 1949 Acts—that is to say, for "services of the Crown", including the supply of equipment to other countries for their own defence. In the Bill, however, these services are extended to include purchases of equipment by one ally for the defence of another—that is to say "offshore" purchases—and the supply of equipment to armed forces acting under the authority of the United Nations.
Turning to the Second aspect of the Bill, in respect of technical information which is not subject to the 1949 Acts, the Bill revokes the Defence (Patents, Trade Marks, &c.) Regulations, but provides, in Clauses 2 to 4, that the Government can authorise a manufacturer in possession of such information to use it for defence contracts, notwithstanding the terms of any agreement under which he obtained

it, subject to compensation and a number of safeguards suggested by the Howitt Committee.
The Government believe that this Bill strikes the right balance. It enables us to go on using the powers which we have found necessary to continue to exercise under the regulations which I referred to, but has provided the safeguards necessary to prevent the existence of such permanent powers discouraging either the development and exchange of technical information in this country, or its flow into Britain from overseas. The Bill will thus meet the need for powers in respect of equipment for defence purposes without discouraging the technical progress in industry upon which our economic strength and prosperity will increasingly depend.
The language of the Bill, involving, as it does, certain amendments to other complicated legislation, cannot, unfortunately, be simple. In Standing Committee, certain drafting Amendments intended to remove obscurities and doubts were accepted. The opportunity was also taken in Standing Committee of seeking to remove some doubts and perhaps misapprehensions about the nature of the Bill which were expressed on Second Reading and were not fully resolved in the debate which took place then. The Government appreciate the full and friendly exchanges which took place in Standing Committee and the expeditious way in which the Bill was dealt with there.
I hope that my brief explanation of the Bill as it now stands will be acceptable to the House.

10.55 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has had a very hard day and has covered a great deal of ground in his penultimate speech. In the circumstances, it seems almost churlish to press him further on the Bill which, although it has four times as many Clauses as the previous Bill, is about one quarter as important, if as much as that, as was the previous Bill.
I do not think that it would greatly advantage the House if I re-expressed on this Third Reading those anxieties which were voiced from this side of the House at various stages of the Bill, but


I would remind the Minister of the feeling that we have that the Government are not making adequate endeavours to secure that there is reciprocity from other nations in exchange for the advantages which we are making available to them in the way of patents, know-how and secret information.
In the course of the Committee discussion I pressed the Minister of Supply, who dealt with the matter, to say whether there were reciprocal arrangements with other countries which would confer similar benefits on this country to those which we are making available to those other countries. The Minister said frankly that he agreed that it was desirable that other countries should introduce similar legislation. When I pressed him to say whether they had done so, his answer was singularly inconclusive. He said:
Similar legislation exists in Canada. The United States, as I understand it, utilises patents for defence purposes in very much the same way. I do not know about other countries." (OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee E, 16th April, 1958; c. 6.]
The completeness of that answer is open to question. In the present debate I can do no more than re-emphasise to the Minister of Supply that we consider that he should have bent his mind to this problem earlier and with more effect, and should not now leave it out of account. We cannot make it conditional upon other nations introducing legislation which we would like to see introduced, that we should make these facilities available in the Bill, but at the same time, the Government should continue their endeavours to see that the interests of this country are not unduly disadvantaged. I leave the topic there.
A further feeling of disappointment that the Government have left with us is that the Bill is narrow in scope. The Parliamentary Secretary gave a most dextrous and agile answer in the Committee, which sounded extremely good when it was listened to, but when I examined it afterwards I was a little more doubtful about its quality. I wondered whether I should allow the Parliamentary Secretary to get away with it as easily as he did. I will not press him again on it, but I very much hope that he was right in saying that the patents which are covered by the Bill will be available for the various

purposes relating to National Health Service which I and other hon. Members enumerated in our debates. His answer, when one analyses it, is that he thought it was almost certain that the Health Service purposes to which I referred were within the scope of the Bill; he was not quite sure about it, and that in the ultimate resort it was for the courts to determine.
As was pointed out, there was an earlier edition of the Bill introduced in another place in 1953, and the noble Lord who introduced it on behalf of the Government made it clear that one of its objects was to remove any doubt about the inclusion of the National Health Service within the scope of the Bill. We always found it rather puzzling that the Minister should purposively desire to go back to a situation of doubt, whereas his own Government had previously taken steps to remove doubt.
However, we are back again in the area of doubt, and we can only hope that the Minister's case will turn out to be well-founded. He gave a hint in his speech that if it should turn out that the National Health Service purposes were not within the scope of the Bill he would take appropriate steps to bring them in by changing the law. I hope that he meant to be understood in that way and that he really means to implement that promise should it turn out to be necessary to do so.
What I have said about the scope of the Bill as far as it deals with patents is true, even perhaps more true, in regard to the part which deals with "know-how." We on this side of the House would like to think that when "know-how" is made available for public purposes those public purposes should not be limited to defence purposes, but will also include civil needs to which I have referred, such as the National Health Service and the Fire Brigade Service.
The Minister of Supply dealt with that matter and gave a similar adroit reply. I do not mean that it was an insincere reply, but I hope that if it should turn out to be that the Bill is too narrow in its provisions dealing with "know-how" appropriate legislation will be introduced to make sure that "know-how" can be made available also for the purposes of the National Health Service.
I am sure that the House will agree that these purposes, civilian though they be, are of equal importance to the welfare of the community as purely defence and warlike purposes. Therefore, I am sure that the House will be in sympathy with the desire I have voiced on behalf of my hon. Friends. We on this side of the House have considerable reservations on whether the provisions with regard to "know-how" will operate at all without there being any sanction. That matter has already been fully discussed. We have done all that we could to assist the Government, but the Government have rejected our overtures. We feel that we can do no more.
At the time when we saw the Bill and had its purpose explained to us in the course of the Minister's Second Reading speech, we considered the Bill a useful one as far as it goes and we would not oppose it. It goes some way to making private skills and knowledge available, subject to suitable safeguards for the general public interest. That is a purpose we approve and, that being the purpose consistently maintained by the Bill and not departed from, we are certainly ready to give it a Third Reading.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

PARK LANE IMPROVEMENT BILL

As amended (on recommittal to the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause.—(TRAFFIC REGULATION.)

As soon as may be the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation shall consult with the Council, the Westminster City Council, and such other local or other authorities as appear to him to be concerned, and unless after such consultation he is satisfied that no order under section ten of the London Traffic Act, 1924, in relation to traffic conditions which may arise at and near the junction of the Underpass and Knightsbridge is required, he shall make such an order as aforesaid:
Provided that any such order shall be made in the form of a statutory instrument and shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament.—[Mr. Ernest Davies.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

11.4 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The reason for this new Clause is that during the discussions on previous stages of the Bill, particularly in Standing Committee, we expressed considerable concern about traffic conditions which would arise as a result of improvements and the construction of the underpass at Hyde Park Corner. We were concerned that when traffic emerges from the underpass, travelling east to west at the Knightsbridge end, a bottleneck will be created with which traffic would find it difficult to cope.
Probably all hon. Members are familiar with conditions at Hyde Park Corner. The improvements to be brought about by the Bill will be of extreme value and should make a great contribution to relief of traffic in that area. If, by removing one bottleneck, we create another, we are little better off than at the outset. If we examine the position as it will be after the Hyde Park roundabout has been enlarged and the underpass constructed, we see that the traffic which will emerge from the underpass, where it reaches the surface, will run into a narrowing road. The traffic on the slipway at the side of the underpass will merge with the traffic coming up from the underpass and will enter a narrowing highway, where it will have much difficulty in sorting itself out.
After the construction of the underpass there will be two lines of traffic at the side of the underpass and two lines coming up from the underpass, and these will enter a roadway where there will be only two lines of traffic. Although provision is made for certain demolition on the north side of Knightsbridge, the demolitions will end at a point where there is a big block of flats called, I think, Park View. After these there is the French Embassy building and the Hyde Park Hotel, and there is no provision for the demolition of those buildings. We can understand that, in view of the nature of the buildings. Nevertheless, this traffic will emerge from the underpass, and along the side of the underpass, on the slipway, and the road will narrow considerably; but it is not proposed that there shall be any demolition.
The traffic reaches Wilton Place, where it turns right and then left and causes considerable confusion even at present. The next intersection is William Street, where the traffic crosses into Hyde Park through the Albert Gate. Subsequently, we come to the even greater congestion at Sloane Street, where the traffic coming up from Sloane Street goes into Knightsbridge. That which wishes to go to the right, which is eastwards, has to go round a small roundabout, whereas the traffic which comes from the west, along Brompton Road or from Kensington, and proposes to turn right into Sloane Street, will cut across the traffic coming up from the underpass or along the slipway.
Unless some serious thought is given to handling the traffic at this point where it emerges from the underpass and where it continues to flow in the direction of Kensington, meeting traffic coming up from Sloane Street and traffic coming along Brompton Road and from Kensington, and unless a scheme is prepared, the relief which it is proposed to give by the construction which is to take place at Hyde Park Corner and subsequently will not be fully realised. That is why we have put down the new Clause which proposes that the Minister shall consult the London County Council, which is the chief highway authority in this matter, the Westminster City Council, and other local authorities and bodies concerned in this matter and that he shall then prepare a scheme under the London Traffic Act, 1924, for the relief of traffic in this area. We propose that that scheme shall then be laid before the House so that we may have an opportunity to debate it, if we wish.
It is not for me to suggest what the scheme should be, but during our debates in Committee the Parliamentary Secretary informed us that the L.C.C. had some plans in hand and that there would be construction of a new road under the new building which is now in course of construction—the Bowater building. I have looked at that building on several occasions—every time I have driven by—and I find it hard to see where this new road is to be. The building is nearly completed and, although there is the possibility of traffic passing underneath the building, even if that is arranged I cannot see that it will give great relief of this very heavy congestion which even today arises where the Sloane Street traffic meets

the Knightsbridge and Brompton Road traffic.
Even if there is to be the roadway construction underneath the Bowater building, there would still be caused considerable difficulty when that traffic meets the traffic flowing from Hyde Park. If that traffic has to go into Hyde Park, what arrangements are there for dealing with the traffic flowing in?
I submit that the present position is confused. I should have thought it necessary that a scheme should be worked out which may well provide for considerable construction work at the intersection of Sloane Street and Knightsbridge and a new roundabout constructed there so that the traffic which is to be eased, so far as its flow from Piccadilly is concerned, shall be able to continue its easier flow and not be held up at what we say is a new bottleneck.
This is one of the major schemes of road improvement work carried out in London over a very long period, and we simply want to see it work out satisfactorily; but unless, at each point where traffic coming from one direction meets traffic coming from another, and where traffic which has used the underpass merges with that which has not, there is provision for an easy flow, then the value of the scheme will be diminished. A scheme should be considered in connection with this area. So far, we have been informed that London Transport Executive does not propose to use the underpass for its buses and this, I think, is very regrettable.
I fully understand its reason. There is the interchange of passengers at the various points at Hyde Park Corner. Many routes converge there, and there are many transfers from one vehicle to another, and, in short, London Transport has decided that buses coming along Piccadilly, or down Park Lane shall not use the underpass; they will use the slipway. If London Transport persists in this decision—which, I think, is quite unnecessary because it could re-route the buses—then it will mean that this heavy traffic will be using the roads on the side of the underpass. That, in turn, will mean that it will have to filter in with traffic coming from the underpass, causing considerable congestion and confusion.
Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary, if he is unable to accept our suggestion, will give an assurance that these matters are being considered and will also say that he will take into consultation the local authorities concerned. Can he say whether he will discuss the matter with London Transport and see whether there is the possibility of working out a scheme for at least a proportion of buses to use the underpass?
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he can give an assurance that full consideration has already been given to the difficult traffic conditions which will arise from the fact that the road narrows when it emerges from the underpass, and to agree to enter into discussions for a scheme so that we may know what is being done to prevent a new bottleneck from being created.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I beg formally to second the Motion.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: In Committee, I expressed myself as satisfied with the Hyde Park Corner scheme, and even with the Knightsbridge part of it, because of what the Parliamentary Secretary said about the new Bowater road funnelling in traffic from the west up to Hyde Park, thereby relieving the traffic at Hyde Park Corner. On reflection, however, I have grave doubts about the scheme and whether it will be practicable, owing to the present bottleneck at Knightsbridge. There will be a much larger flow of traffic round the roundabout and coming up from the tunnel from the Piccadilly end from the east, so the bottleneck in Knightsbridge will be much more severe.
To satisfy myself on the point, I got up at 5.30 yesterday to examine the situation in the cool of the morning and to measure the pavements and road widths. What I found really shocked me. At Hyde Park Corner, the road going down to Knightsbridge is no less than 72 ft. wide, even allowing for a pedestrian refuge in the centre. There are two carriageways, 36 ft. wide, which allow for eight lines of traffic, four lanes in either direction.
But when the road funnels down in Knightsbridge, at Wilton Place, instead of

the road being 72 ft. wide, the carriageway is only 35 ft. wide, so that there is just room for two lanes of traffic in either direction. A little later, from Wilton Place, near to the Hyde Park Hotel, it widens to 39 ft., but there is still room for only two lanes of traffic, divided by a refuge. So Knightsbridge is a bottleneck, and it will be a traffic drunkard's paradise in due course.
The pavements which I measured at the narrow point are 13 ft. 6 ins. wide on one side, and 11 ft. wide on the other. A little later, they are even 18 ft. and 19 ft. wide at the bottleneck, so that, in the narrow part of Knightsbridge, there is a carriageway which is 35 ft. wide and pavements as much as 24 ft. 6 ins. wide. That is a ridiculous proportion, having regard to the great weight of traffic in that area.
My positive suggestion, therefore, to cure the problem at Knightbridge, is to bring the pavements down to a width of 7 ft. on either side. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] There is not a great deal of pedestrian traffic there.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Yes, tremendous.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Seven feet will give quite a wide pavement. If that were done, it would give us an extra space on the carriageway of 10 feet 6 inches, which would provide 45 feet 6 inches all told at the narrowest point. That would be enough for six lanes of traffic, three in either direction.
I should like my hon. Friend to consider that point, with the London County Council. Perhaps he could give us an undertaking tonight that he will go into it very thoroughly to see whether the pavements could be narrowed to give five or six lanes of traffic. That would be a very reasonable proposition. If we do not do it, we shall run into a great deal of trouble at Knightsbridge, and it would be a great disaster to spend £4 million or £5 million at Hyde Park Corner and then find that we still had the severest of bottlenecks at Knightsbridge.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I sympathise with hon. Members' anxiety that we should not, by the road improvement we are proposing at Hyde Park Corner, create a new difficulty in Knightsbridge.


I hope that what I can say will reassure hon. Members opposite that their new Clause is not necessary to avoid that consequence.
Already, my right hon. Friend has the necessary power under the 1924 Act to consult with the London County Council and with Westminster City Council; and he does, in practice, make those consultations effective through the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee on all traffic regulating schemes throughout London. That advice is very valuable. Although the layout of Knightsbridge itself is not strictly part of the Park Lane scheme, I fully accept that it will impinge upon it and that, therefore, hon. Members have anxieties about how it will affect the scheme. I must congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) on his early morning visit to this spot yesterday. Evidently, he has eschewed the bottlenecks as much as he is recommending tonight that I should. The measurements that he took do not exactly correspond with the measurements which our engineers took. Whether that was due to the clarity of the air in that early hour of the morning I would not like to suggest.
We found that at the narrowest point to which my hon. Friend called our attention, east of Wilton Place, the measurement our engineers took was not the 35 feet which my hon. Friend gave for the carriageway width, but 40 feet, and that is a significant difference.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I am not counting the refuge in the centre. I agree that the whole carriageway is very nearly 40 ft. wide, but when allowance if made for the refuge, the actual space on which vehicles can travel is only about 35 ft.

Mr. Nugent: Good. We agree that the carriageway is 40 ft.
I agree that the footpaths are 13 ft. 7 ins. on the south side and 9 ft. on the north side of the carriageway. I was glad when there were cries of dissent when my hon. Friend suggested that we should narrow the pavements to 7 ft. wide. I think that that is much too narrow in this fairly busy shopping area. It is possible that the southern pavement at l3 ft. 7 ins. can be shaved down to

improve the alignment there, but anything like the reduction which my hon. Friend suggested would not be consonant with road safety.
I will certainly undertake that we will discuss with London County Council the possibility of improving the alignment on the southern side. It is obvious that that means a pinch point just east of Wilton Place where the carriageway is reduced to 40 ft. It is our wish that there should be room for four lanes of traffic, two in each direction. The road widens out west of Wilton Place to 44 ft. and it might be possible for there to be some realignment on the northern side where we are already to acquire property for the road widening further east to get to 44 ft. throughout. I will certainly undertake to look at the matter again with the L.C.C.
The hon. Member of Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) expressed anxieties about the Sloane Street junction. The proposal there, as I explained in Committee, is that by making a new entrance into the Park through the Bowater building, which will be a wide thoroughfare of four lanes, two in each direction, and setting back the pavement line some distance towards the Park, to improve the junction there and, by a system of channelisation, which has been unsuccessfully advocated elsewhere, and a fairly complicated system of traffic lights, to effect a considerable improvement at the junction.
We have now sanctioned London County Council's proposal for these improvements at this junction, and provided that the lighting equipment is delivered in reasonable time they should be in operation by the end of this year. That will give us a fairly long interval of operating with the new junction and the new lighting system which, incidentally, will be linked with Albert Gate, to see how it works before we have the effect of the underpass and the reconstruction at Hyde Park Corner. My own feeling is of some doubt whether Albert Gate should be kept open when the new entrance into the Park has gone through Bowater House, but, in any event, we shall be able to see how this works before we see the effect at Hyde Park Corner, and if it is necessary to close it we shall certainly do so.
I can certainly assure the House that a good deal of thought has been given to such improvements as we can make in Knightsbridge, so that we shall not lose the benefit of the new Hyde Park layout by a fresh bottleneck in Knightsbridge. The long-term scheme of the L.C.C. is to enlarge the roundabout at the Sloane Street junction, but it is a fairly long-term plan and cannot be brought into operation at present. I am sure hon. Members will accept that if we were to wait for all road improvements to take place simultaneously, obviously we should never get any at all.
I certainly can give the assurance that this interim improvement in Knightsbridge will considerably improve this junction and that the general flow of traffic will be adequately provided for through Knightsbridge, with two lanes in each direction, and that there will not be thereby a loss of the great benefits which we shall get at Hyde Park Corner. I hope that with that assurance it will be possible for the hon. Member to withdraw his new Clause.

Mr. Ernest Davies: In view of the Parliamentary Secretary's explanation, and his assurance that this problem is being looked at, and the confidence he expresses, though we do not entirely share it, that this will be solved, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion and Clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15.—(IMPROVEMENTS TO BECOME HIGHWAYS.)

Mr. Ernest Davies: I beg to move, in page 14, line 2, to leave out "by the Council and not".

r. Speaker: This and the hon. Member's next Amendment go together, do they not?

Mr. Davies: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The second, in page 14, to leave out lines 4 to 10, is really consequential upon the first.
I do not think that I need detain the House long on this point. The purpose of these two Amendments is to ensure that the highway authority for the roads in the neighbourhood of this improvement is the same highway authority as the one which will be responsible for the underpass. As the Bill stands,

London County Council will be responsible for the underpasses, and the Westminster City Council is the highway authority for the highways. I raised this matter in Standing Committee, and the Parliamentary Secretary gave me an undertaking that he would discuss it with the responsible authorities. I move the Amendment in the hope that he will be able to give me the results of his consultations with the L.C.C. and Westminster City Council.
The question has arisen because for some unknown reason London County Council is responsible for all London's tunnels. It is the authority responsible, presumably, for Rotherhithe Tunnel and Blackwall Tunnel, and so on. Once the underpasses are constructed they will be considered to be tunnels and London County Council will be responsible for them, but the responsible highway authority for the roads which are affected by these improvements under the Bill, at Piccadilly, Knightsbridge, Grosvenor Place, and so on, is Westminster City Council.
We feel that it is undesirable that the highway authority should be the Westminster City Council, and that the responsible authority for the tunnel itself should be the London County Council. This will cause some unnecessary confusion and complication, which the Parliamentary Secretary surely cannot justify. The Bill as it stands makes provision for the London County Council to hand over to the Westminster City Council, by agreement, the responsibility for the underpass, and the purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that the London County Council will do so.
By deleting these words and the paragraph referred to, the Westminster City Council would become the authority responsible for the underpass once it had been constructed. That is logical and reasonable. It would be ridiculous if we had one authority responsible for the road at the side of the underpass and another authority responsible for the roads in the underpass. In those circumstances I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will either be able to accept the Amendment or to give an assurance that the London County Council has reached agreement with the Westminster


City Council to hand over the responsibility for the underpass once it has been constructed.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: As I undertook in Committee, we have had consultations with the London County Council on this matter, and the Council has decided that it should be responsible for the underpass. As the hon. Member has said, the London County Council is responsible for all London tunnels, under the river and elsewhere, and, in fact, there are certain aspects of maintenance, such as ventilation and lighting, which require expert knowledge. It therefore seems sensible to leave responsibility for this one with the experts—the London County Council—which already has engineers who are skilled in this matter.
The hon. Member need not feel anxious about the matter; this arrangement, that the London County Council shall be responsible for tunnel maintenance in the immediate proximity, with the Metropolitan boroughs concerned being responsible for the road maintenance, gives rise to no difficulty in practice in the other tunnels for which the London County Council is responsible, and I am quite sure that it will not cause any difficulty here; nor need the House feel anxious that this is necessarily a precedent.
If underpasses are built elsewhere within the L.C.C. area they will be considered on their merits; it will be a question whether they are sufficiently large tunnels that the L.C.C. feels that it is desirable to take them over, or whether they can be left in the hands of the Metropolitan boroughs concerned. It is entirely a practical question, as to who is best equipped to look after the tunnel concerned. In those circumstances, I hope that the hon. Member will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.

11.35 p.m.

Mr. Nigel Birch: Before the Bill leaves the House, I should like to put a curse upon it. I think that it is a bad Bill. The fact that both sides of the House are agreed upon it does not alter my opinion. Many of the worst

things that this House has done have been unanimously agreed—and the fact that the L.C.C. also agrees confirms me in my opinion.
I believe that, on principle, it is wrong to sanction encroachments on the Royal Parks. The Royal Parks have been defended in their present form for some hundreds of years. Of course, one can solve or help to solve many problems if one allows encroachments on the Royal Parks. Traffic in Westminster would be much assisted if the whole of St. James's Park were turned into a car park. Housing would be much assisted if we had prefabricated bungalows in Hyde Park. Many useful interests would be served if technical colleges, public wash-houses and lunatic asylums were built in Regent's Park; many interests would be served.
But the Royal Parks are among the principal glories of our country and they are loved by many people not only in London, but all over the country and all over the world. They have been jealously defended by generations of Ministers of Works, who have refused to allow encroachments upon them. It is a great grief to me that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Works has not only not defended the Parks in this case, but appears positively to welcome what I believe is a desecration. I say "desecration" advisedly.
I was, I confess, startled by the speech of the Minister of Transport on Second Reading because he referred to amenities, and so on, and to trees. The only thing he said about trees was that he hoped to plant a few, or that the Minister of Works would do so. But what happens under this Bill is that at least fifty of the finest and largest plane trees in London will be felled at the outset. They are along the East Carriage Drive in Hyde Park, in Hamilton Gardens, on the south side of Piccadilly, where the underpass is to come out, and also the particularly fine ones at the point near Buckingham Palace Gardens.
The effect of cutting down the trees will be to alter the vistas in Hyde Park, Green Park and the gardens of Buckingham Palace. Then the lodges, or most of them, in the East Carriageway, some of them of very considerable architectural interest, will be removed. Hamilton Gardens, so magnificently redesigned and replanned,


will be murdered, and Apsley House will be left shaking on an island in the middle of a sea of traffic. This is a great price to pay for what will be achieved.
The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) hit on one of the important points. It will transfer the traffic block at Hyde Park Corner to Knightsbridge and also to Piccadilly Circus and Victoria. I have always had considerable doubts whether the three new roundabouts will make the traffic flow as it is hoped that it will. I notice that the Observer mentioned one of the main points in an article last Sunday, in which it was pointed out that what the traffic experts call the "volume of weave" is much greater in these roundabouts than United States or Continental engineers believe is feasible. It was pointed out, too, that none of the reports of the Road Research Laboratory on its experiments—that is, with mock-ups—have been published or put before the public or this House.
When the scheme was first mooted there was a great deal of opposition. The Royal Fine Art Commission came out against it. The Times came out against it; but they have not followed it through; now they only make a few genteel simperings. But this battle is not altogether lost. The Bill must go to another place, and I hope that their Lordships, at any rate, will insist that the public is informed of what are the aesthetic consequences of the Bill, as they certainly have not been informed in this House, and that they will also make the most rigorous examination—also not made in this House—of the traffic consequences. If they do, they will be doing their duty. The passage of the Bill has been too easy, and none of the main objections to it has been raised.

11.41 p.m.

Mr. Nugent: I sympathise with the concern of my right hon. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch) that we should not lose any of the wonderful features that we have inherited in our Royal Parks, but I did not feel that his comments were entirely fair. A very great deal of thought has been given to the scheme which is now before the House. It has been discussed in detail on Second Reading for a whole day, and in Committee.
It is recognised that the scheme has great benefits indeed, and although there

is a price to be paid in terms of the Royal Parks the benefits from the improved traffic flow are such that it is worth paying. Hyde Park Corner is well known as the worst traffic intersection in the country, where there is the heaviest flow of traffic—91,000 vehicles per 12-hour day—and where there is more delay and congestion than at any other intersection in the country. For years, people have been considering how it could be improved.
Similarly with the rest of the scheme. The Marble Arch intersection has 65,000 vehicles per day. It is a very difficult intersection indeed. A very great deal of delay and congestion take place there, and frequent delay and congestion in getting entrance from Park Lane into the Park. This scheme will give relief at both those main intersections and will give one-way working north to south, which will greatly improve traffic movement.
The scheme is almost at the heart of Central London. Continually, all of us complain and have heard complaints about the movement of traffic in London. We know that it is far too slow. Here is a scheme which will make a substantial improvement in traffic flow in London. Emanating from this point, we can go on to other traffic improvement schemes which will give further benefit. This is at the very heart of Central London traffic; I hope that my right hon. Friend will not just write it off as something of no consequence. It will make a substantial basic contribution to the movement of traffic in London.
Certainly, the total cost is high, but I can reassure my right hon. Friend that this is the best scheme that the experts can work out. We had a group working on the scheme, including members of the Road Research Laboratory, and after long studies it came to the conclusion that this was the best scheme. I regret as much as my right hon. Friend does that Hamilton Gardens should have to go, and that we shall lose a net area of about five to six acres of Park land. I agree that it is a heavy loss, but it is fair to remind the House that there are about 373 acres of Hyde Park and 55 acres of Green Park.
Certainly, trees will be lost, and that is a heavy price to pay; but other amenity benefits will come. The heavy flow of


traffic at present using the East Carriage Drive in Hyde Park will, in future, be outside the Park. Fences will be moved back, and the Park will have the benefit of having this heavy flow of traffic moving outside. The subways which will be built under Park Lane and out into the Park will in future make it safe and comfortable for pedestrians to reach the Park in reasonable conditions as opposed to the present situation.
The central reservations and islands are being most carefully laid down by London County Council, which has devoted £450,000 to this purpose and is taking the advice of the Royal Fine Art Commission as of the best way of doing the work. I think that the House will find that when these reservations and islands are finally laid down they will add amenity to London and something which will tone in well with the rest of the Park. Finally, the Decimus Burton Screen will be preserved in its present condition and be undisturbed by traffic flowing through it.
I will not pretend that the price we are to pay for this is negligible and I certainly sympathise with the strong fight that my right hon. Friend has made to protect the Park. I agree with him that our Parks are one of the most valuable and desirable of beautiful features we have in the whole of London. I suppose I know them as well as most hon. Members in this House. I walk through Green Park and St. James's Park. I have walked through every day for the last six and a half years and probably know the trees and flowerbeds as well as anyone. I give way to no one in affection for the Parks and wish to see them preserved, but in the Ministry I also have some responsibility for traffic matters. Much as I sympathise—I understand the relaxation and recreation which Londoners enjoy in the Parks—I am also very much aware of the danger and strain they endure when they are using the roads.
It is impossible to separate one factor from the other. They are both experiences which the Londoners feel. I believe that in this scheme, which certainly has to make some contribution from these great features of recreation and relaxation, we are making a contribution to London traffic which will relieve Londoners of some of the

strain and some of the danger they now endure when moving about in vehicles in Central London.
I ask my right hon. Friend to see this proposition in that context. I believe that we are doing something here which will be of great value to Londoners, which will benefit them in the movement of traffic and benefit them in their homes. I ask hon. Members to give the Bill a Third Reading and send it on its way with their blessing.

11.48 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I intervene only very briefly because of the lateness of the hour. The House was greatly impressed by the speech we heard from the right hon. Member for Flint, West (Mr. Birch). It was right we should be impressed, because the right hon. Member was a most notable Minister of Works and I think that any doubts he expresses about the amenity aspects of this Bill should be treated by hon. Members with the most serious consideration.
When we debated the Bill on Second Reading a number of hon. Members expressed doubts about the aesthetic effects of the proposals contained in it, but I think that most of us came to the conclusion that our doubts were, on the whole, really met and we felt that any disadvantages in the scheme were outweighed by the advantages which should accrue by the movement of traffic.
Tonight, the right hon. Member has to some extent revived the doubts we felt on that occasion because, speaking with all the authority of a former Minister of Works, he has made a number of criticisms of the right hon. Gentleman who now occupies that position. He has accused the Minister of failing to carry on the traditions of previous Ministers of Works in defending the Parks from encroachments and concurring in a proposal which will have the effect of destroying a number of very beautiful plane trees in the heart of this city.
As the Minister has been silent throughout our deliberations on this Bill, it is only fair to the House that he should deal with the criticisms that his right hon. Friend has made.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

PHYSICAL TRAINING AND RECREATION [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act in the present Session to make provision for loans to be made by local authorities for physical training and recreation in Great Britain, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to the said Act of the present Session in the sums payable out of moneys so provided under Part I of the Local Government Act, 1948, or under the Local Government (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act, 1954, as amended by the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956.

Resolution agreed to.

ROYAL ORDNANCE FACTORY, CARDIFF (CLOSING)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Bryan.]

11.50 p.m.

Mr. George Thomas: I am sorry to keep the House at this late hour, but it is a matter of considerable importance in the City of Cardiff that leads me to do so.
The House has been considering today the question of employment in various parts of the country. I am particularly concerned with one aspect of the employment problem in the City of Cardiff. When the decision to close the Royal Ordnance Factory, Cardiff, was taken by the Minister of Supply he must have expected trouble from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) and myself. We have almost worn out the carpet in the Parliamentary Secretary's room during the past year. That is why I am surprised to see the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn) present for the debate, because during the past year, as the Minister knows, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East and I have had to conduct the defence of the factory, or of industry in Cardiff, alone.

Mr. David Llewellyn: The Minister also knows that that is completely inaccurate, from his own files and from my personal visits.

Mr. Thomas: I could devote the remainder of the Adjournment debate to

enlightening the hon. Member for Cardiff, North. There is a file with the trade union as well as with the Minister, and the trade union has its own attitude towards this question.
The threat of the closure of the R.O.F., Cardiff, has hung like the sword of Damocles over the workers for a long time. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East and I have had many interviews with the Parliamentary Secretary but, after our long and considerable correspondence with him, at the end the Ministry misled us. The Parliamentary Secretary visited the factory, Cardiff, on 19th February, and about that time the Western Mail, which is a very important paper in the City of Cardiff, published an official statement, issued on behalf of the Department, describing as "irresponsible" any talk that the factory was to be closed. The Minister of Supply himself stood at the Box early in March and assured my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East that there was no basis at all for the talk that the factory, Cardiff, was to be closed. Nothing could have been more reassuring than the Minister's statement to my hon. Friend.
To be doubly sure, I tabled a Question, which should have been answered on the Monday before Easter, asking the Minister whether he would deal with the future pattern of employment at the R.O.F., Cardiff. The Parliamentary Secretary knows that I had a telephone call to my home telling me that the Minister would not be able to answer on the Monday, and I at once said that to meet the convenience of the Ministry I would postpone the Question until after Easter, which I did. The House was in Recess for only ten days, but the Minister chose during those ten days, when the House was in Recess, to issue his statement that he had decided to close the major part of the factory.
My inquiry was, therefore, answered before the House had returned from the Recess. I do not altogether blame the Minister of Supply. I do not believe that he is master in his own house. The real culprit is the Minister of Defence. He seems to have gone berserk. He seems to be running in every direction, and all the Government Departments are running behind him, not knowing where he is going.
This closure is a public humiliation for the Minister of Supply. His reassurances were well reported in the South Wales Press, and they raised hopes which were only to be dashed later. The House will know that I do not want these skilled men to be kept on work of a military nature, or to see the factory at Cardiff kept open but idle. Nor do I resist the changing pattern of employment; indeed, I support it; but the Western Mail's leading article describes those of us who have taken the stand that I have taken as Luddites who seek to halt the oncoming tide of new ideas. I am very sorry that this newspaper published this, because I am one of its faithful readers; but I am not a Luddite. It should have shared our agitation, because what a loss it is to South Wales to scatter like chaff this company of unrivalled skilled labour.
Nobody knows better than the Parliamentary Secretary of the shining reputation of the labour collected at this Ordnance factory, but when the Minister of Supply came to the House and made his statement I did not detect any sense of urgency in the replies which he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East or to myself on future activities at Cardiff. This factory space at Cardiff is among the best in the United Kingdom, not only among the best in Wales. The people in Cardiff have a right to demand that the Government shall use their full resources to provide a basic—and I emphasise "basic"—industry for that factory. We are not willing to be fobbed off with what I would call a "tuppenny-ha'penny" industry which will close at the feel of the first real wind of recission. Already, South Wales is paying the price for having too many secondary industries.
I am very glad to see the Minister for Welsh Affairs in his place tonight. We did not expect to see the right hon. Gentleman, so the pleasure is all the greater. He will know that one of our major anxieties in South Wales is that the industries which have come in the postwar years have largely been secondary, with the mother industry based in England; and, when the winds of a deflationary economy blow, these secondary industries are the first to close.
In South Wales the average unemployment rate is already 3·8 per cent., compared with 1·9 per cent. for the rest of the United Kingdom. I cannot give the exact

figure tonight, but Cardiff has rising unemployment which is worrying me very much. Skilled men are joining the unskilled in the queue at Westgate Street, signing on for unemployment pay. In a deflationary economy it is bound to be the secondary industries which close first, and I say to the Parliamentary Secretary that the Ministry cannot shuffle off the responsibility for our future in South Wales.
Cardiff workers have served the Department well and we have the right to expect that they shall have a guarantee for the future. Let the Minister lend his weight to getting work from such organisations as the Central Electricity Authority, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, or from one of the great steel concerns.
We do not want light industries that will be blown away with the winds of recession. We want something solid and substantial. We have the labour. We have the factory space—for which my hon. Friends have been crying out in other parts. We have factories already empty, as the President of the Board of Trade could tell the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply. We have been worried about the B.S.A. factory at Cardiff, and also a light engineering factory there; all over the area there are signs of empty factories.
The Government themselves could provide skilled, peaceful occupation for these men. Fear has already hit the R.O.F. at Cardiff and the workers are beginning to scatter. I know that notices were held up for a fortnight because of trade union pressure. I think that the normal machinery had not been followed, and the Parliamentary Secretary is, rightly, a stickler for doing the right thing in regard to trade union machinery.
But what of all the employees? We divide them, naturally, into two categories, established and unestablished, and these categories in themselves fall naturally into two parts, the skilled and the unskilled. Some will be fairly well off with the protection which the Treasury scheme affords them. Some who are reaching the age of retirement will draw their lump sum and probably elect not to leave Cardiff. But nearly all of them are in their own homes, and this is a major problem for their families if they are now to be uprooted and scattered to the four corners of the


United Kingdom, or, indeed, within the Chancellor's scheme, overseas.
It is not easy for people who have to move to another part of the country for work to sell their house. Let them try to get a mortgage, and they will find that it is the hardest thing in the world to do today. But if they are to retain their rights as established civil servants they may have to let their property go for a song. They may have to lose heavily.
I earnestly hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to assure me tonight that work as near as possible to Cardiff will be found for those who have to leave their present jobs. My main emphasis is, however, this. For over twenty years the Ministry of Supply has taken for its use one of the nicest parts of Cardiff. Now it says, "Thank you. We have had enough. We are going." But it is not quite as easy as that in a civilised community. The Government must face their responsibilities. There is plenty of good, solid, constructive, peaceful work which can be guided to the factory space at the R.O.F., Cardiff, if enough initiative is shown by the Department.
I would not wish to resume my seat without saying to the Parliamentary Secretary that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East and I have received from him and his predecessor help and courtesy. We are mindful that this decision is not his. I believe that it was perhaps forced on the Minister of Supply, or he would not have made a fool of himself a fortnight previously when he stood at the Dispatch Box and said that he did not think that the place had to be closed. Since it is to be closed, let us ensure that the Ministry of Supply combines with other Government Departments to protect the economic interests of the people in a city which has never failed to pull its weight for the Government of the day.

12.5 a.m.

Mr. David Llewellyn: I should like to join the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) in the tribute he has paid to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply for the interest and help he has given to hon. Members on both sides of the House, including myself, in this very difficult matter.
We cannot view the closing of the Royal Ordnance Factory at Llanishen with anything but great regret, but it is not a problem which one can look at in isolation. We must face the fact that changing patterns of defence have cast a shadow of uncertainty over the factory for many years. Instead of adopting a Luddite attitude to change, which, earlier today, the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens) condemned, and instead of producing what would be useless ordnance, we must now, before these very skilled workers are dispersed, ensure that an engineering firm takes over which can offer the prospect of continuous work for years ahead.
I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Supply and to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer for the steps they have taken together to mitigate some of the hardships to which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West referred. I would remind the House of a Question which I put to the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 28th April, a fortnight after I had an interview with the Minister of Supply about this matter.

Mr. James Callaghan: Which year?

Mr. Llewellyn: This year, and in previous years also, if the hon. Gentleman is interested.
I asked the Financial Secretary to the Treasury:
whether he will make a statement about the position of established civil servants who become redundant because of the closure of substantial reduction of defence establishments under the policy announced in the White Paper on Defence of 16th April, 1957.
My hon. and learned Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury replied that
To meet the exceptional circumstances certain new arrangements will be introduced at a very early date. These include provision, within the framework of the existing Superannuation Acts, for payments to be made in certain circumstances to established civil servants who become redundant in this way at their place of work and leave the Service."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th April, 1958; Vol. 587, c. 12.]
Then he went on to refer to the recent agreement on the Joint Co-ordinating Committee for Government Industrial Establishments, which is a complex document into which I have no time to go now.
I hope that my hon. Friend will say a few words about the difficulties of


apprentices tonight. It is a matter which I have discussed with representatives of the trade unions in Cardiff and with him.

12.8 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. W. J. Taylor): I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. G. Thomas) for the very reasonable way in which he made his case tonight, and for the complimentary things which he said about my right hon. Friend and myself. I very much sympathise with him and other hon. Members who represent Cardiff in this matter. The closing of a factory or, as in this case, the major part of a factory is a very sad occasion. As the hon. Member knows, I visited the Royal Ordnance Factory at Cardiff myself not many weeks ago. When I was there, I met the shop stewards committee and representatives of the staff side. I discussed their problems with them. I realise that many of the workpeople have given long and faithful service to the Ministry of Supply in that factory, and it is with keen personal regret that I see them faced with this misfortune.
The question is asked: why close Cardiff as distinct from any other of the Royal Ordnance factories in this gun carriage and tank group? Unfortunately, the decision to close the Royal Ordnance Factory at Cardiff was, from the engineering and industrial point of view, quite inescapable. Following the reductions in the size of the Armed Forces, War Office orders for ordnance equipment over the next few years are expected to be substantially below the level of orders in recent years. During the last few months we have been making a careful review of the production capacity in the gun carriage and tank group of Royal Ordnance factories against the background of future Service requirements, so far as we can foresee them. It was quite clear, from this review, that our capacity for producing guns is much greater than we are likely to need.
This is a long-term problem, but there was also the immediate problem of the Cardiff factory. This factory has recently been engaged mainly on the manufacture of 20-pounder tank guns and Bofors L70 guns, also the 76 mm. gun for armoured cars. The running down of War Office orders for these weapons has produced a serious shortage of work in this factory right from the beginning of this year.

The problem which faced us, therefore, was whether we could take special measures to transfer work into Cardiff from other factories, but since we know that our overall capacity in the Royal Ordnance factories is greater than we require this would have meant closing down parts of other factories, particularly the one at Nottingham, which is engaged on a similar type of work.
Cardiff is, however, a relatively small factory largely specially equipped for the work on which it has been engaged. There is nothing that Cardiff is equipped to do that Nottingham is not already equipped for, but the reverse is not true. The work which is available to these Royal Ordnance factories in the future is predominantly of the kind for which Nottingham is already equipped but Cardiff is not. In concentrating the work it is easy to put Cardiff into Nottingham, but Nottingham could not by a very long way be put into Cardiff.
I come to the question of redundancies and the position of the workpeople. We estimate that about 190 established people and about 250 unestablished will become redundant as a result of the closing of the factory. The first discharges will not take place until towards the end of May. Every effort will be made by the local officials of the Ministry of Labour and the factory management, working closely together, as they always do, to resolve the problem of redeployment. Joint efforts by teams such as this have been markedly successful in other areas where factories have had to be closed in helping redundant workpeople to find other employment. Arrangements have been made for the Ministry of Labour to set up an employment office at the factory as soon as the actual redundancies are declared.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Llewellyn) mentioned the question of apprentices. I would put in a personal note here, if I may. This is the question which really hurts me most, because I realise what a serious thing it is to interrupt the training of a young man who has already set his sights to make himself a really first class skilled workman, and to move him has emotional as well as practical effects upon him.
There are about 70 apprentices who will either be transferred to other Ministry of Supply establishments to complete


their training or, if the boys and their parents so desire, they will be allowed to terminate their apprenticeships with the Department to enable them to complete their training with some outside firm of the parents' own choosing. I give the assurance that my Department and my right hon. Friend and I personally will do what we can to assist in this process.

Mr. G. Thomas: If apprentices have served for one year at the R.O.F., will that count towards their apprentices' service?

Mr. Taylor: I shall be very surprised if a good private employer declines to take that time into account.
The position of the unestablished employees is that they will have the improved gratuities which became applicable from May last year. Work can be provided elsewhere for all the established workpeople, but the Government have also decided to give further help to those who, although they freely accepted the liability to transfer when they became established, now find themselves, for one reason or another, unable to transfer.
The new arrangements broadly provide that an established man at Cardiff who wishes to leave the Government service and find employment in the same area, so that he does not have to move his home, may, like his unestablished colleagues in similar circumstances, now claim a termination payment calculated according to his length of service. The new rules will be introduced with effect from 16th April last year. The surplus established men at closing factories such as that at Cardiff are, therefore, now better off than under the old arrangements, and I am sure that this improvement will be welcomed with general satisfaction.
I was very sorry to hear the charges which the hon. Member for Cardiff, West made against my right hon. Friend in saying that he and his hon. Friend had not been kept fully informed about our plans for the Royal Ordnance Factory at Cardiff. There could be no good reason why my right hon. Friend should seek to deceive hon. Members on a matter of this kind. Politics are not involved and there is no good reason why he should withhold information. However, I appreciate how keenly hon. Members feel about matters of this kind, which are of

such great importance to their constituents. I regard it as part of my duty to keep hon. Members informed about these matters as promptly as possible.
On the other hand, a decision cannot be announced before it is taken; nor is it useful to attempt to forecast a decision while a review is in progress. Furthermore, in the Ministry of Supply we believe that the first to be told of decisions such as this should be the workpeople themselves and that they should get the news at first hand from their own factory superintendents. This was done at special meetings of the joint factory committees which were held in each of the factories affected by the statement of my right hon. Friend earlier this month.
I have discussed the future of this factory with the hon. Member for Cardiff, West and the hon. Member for Cardiff South-East (Mr. Callaghan) on several occasions and I have been at considerable pains to explain to them that because of declining requirements and orders the need for all the capacity comprised in the factories in the engineering group was under review. Inevitably, there was very considerable personal anxiety about the outcome of the review.
I conclude by saying that the rundown of the factory will no doubt present many difficult problems. I shall be glad to discuss these problems as they arise with the hon. Members concerned, with any other hon. Member, or with interested persons outside the House, if I can help. I can assure them that I shall give my personal attention to ensuring that any difficulties are resolved as smoothly as possible and with as little hardship as possible to the workpeople.

Mr. Callaghan: This is the second body blow that Cardiff has had in the last three months. I am very glad that the Minister for Welsh Affairs is present. The B.S.A. factory has closed and now this factory has closed. Compassion and sympathy and arrangements for compensation are all very well, but what we want is work. Heaven knows, there is a small enough pool of skilled workpeople.

The Question having been proposed after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty minutes past Twelve o'clock.